I agree with the line of argument but,Wesley, this is very dense verbiage. I understand you are writing about people who use similar language but please, let’s not here. Also, I agree the U. of Maryland is second rate. Many second and third tier institutions are among the more fanatical in adopting the Ideology, at least they can be in the vanguard of something.
Some pieces will be dense and some will not be dense. I write in different registers for different subjects; in this case, I'm looking at specific cases but using them to develop a general theory. Though dense, I am striving to make it so that it is not gratuitously so.
I have to agree with jblalock here about the dense verbiage. Reading this was very tough sledding, especially since it was also sloppily written. The multiple misplaced references and instances of outright bad grammar were jarring. You can make a clear, cogent argument that’s both compelling and a bit easier to read.
Wesley: I’ve seen enough of your writing to know that you have a great ability to express complex ideas in a clear and straightforward manner. Piling clause upon clause blunts the force and persuasiveness of the writing.
I don't have an issue with the language. In fact, the language you use is one of the pleasures of reading your writing. It clearly condenses subtle points.
In fact, if you go and google NYTimes or other periodicals from 90s and before, you will often find the kind of language and syntax. Passage of time has diluted writing.
This was my thought as well. Wesleys language is dense because it compacts many ideas into single sentences. I prefer this style of writing personally, but I'm sure the other feedback he's getting is just as valuable.
I want to second what others are saying- excellent analysis, very worthwhile article that I am glad to have read. I don't have an issue with the language or concepts. What causes me to re-read paragraphs multiple times until I have digested them is the compound sentences. Consider it a gentle suggestion from someone who doesn't approach your own skill at writing. One thought per sentence would make it easier to process.
It was tough in parts. But I sort of didn't mind working through some of the dense bits because so much of it paid off. There is some freshness here ( I find a lot of writers repeating the same points when it comes to this subject matter) in terms of perspective. The whole pathway of misunderstood bad idea jumping from student bureaucracies to government bureaucracies was really well stated. Loved it!
Just to give my own two cents worth of encouragement (our hyperinflation makes that old expression hilariously sound almost insulting), I didn't find it dense at all and love how you have a wide vocabulary and are willing to use it! Your writing is far from sloppy and clearly has a lot of effort put into it, while being well thought out and a breath of fresh air to read.
In case the feedback may be helpful at all, I do agree with the sentiment that it could have been a little easier to read, but I don't think it was due to verbiage, and I didn't find it that difficult myself. I think Laurie Mitchell Dunn has a good point about it having something to do with grammar, but I'm not sure exactly what it was about it, I suppose since grammar isn't as easy as everyone acts like it is, and writing is hard and just something that takes practice, more than anything, to be able to do well.
Keep it up. The average reading level has gone way down; we all read and write way less than people used to. Articles like this are part of how we will collectively get reading and writing levels back up. And our culture today is so cold, we all can be even without intending to be; yet it's well understood how regular exposure to pain only increases sensitivity to experiencing it (I suspect that's part of how "microaggressions" have been turned into a genuine experience; through society becoming collectively vulnerable in decline and the overclass psychologists then exploiting that thinking they have all the answers).
So at risk of sounding sensitive or projecting in my rebellion against that culture — make sure you try not to take any of the criticism from your readers that want you to improve the wrong way, since those of us among the underclass are all on the same side. :)
This new Newspeak has made us all forget how to communicate and understand one another. Articles like this are how we practically rebel, and places like Substack that still preserve freedom of speech—our ability to listen and discuss with each other—are how we will escape our historical epoch's intellectual vacuum that we've all become trapped in.
To add my two cents—I found the piece entirely readable and, as is typical when reading an essay by Wesley, also found myself enjoying his rich but clear writing style.
This isn’t a criticism of the original commenter but I find this whole thread a distraction. Engage with the arguments or don’t, and if you don’t like it why are you subscribed. Paternalistic, patronizing comments are the worst.
On the subject of successor/woke/progressive manipulation of language, I thought (if not too presumptuous and apologies if it is) a piece I wrote for another publication.
John McWhorter, the distinguished linguist, has an ecclesiastical term for the members of the current woke/progressive/CRT movement: The Elect. He has chosen that term to emphasize the fact that the movement is not just like a religion, but actually is a religion (or at least a cult).
All religions are alike in certain ways, especially in the need for a common terminology, a series of definitions and words that make it possible to function within said religion. Sometimes these terms are spun out of whole cloth, appearing sui generis either at the beginning or as time goes by. Sometimes these terms are taken from “the outside world” and may, or may not, retain a close relation to their original meaning.
With The Elect (capitalization intentional), much of the terminology is actually taken directly from the self-help and therapy movements. This usurpation gives the terms a feeling to the public of general familiarity, lending a certain comfort when encountering them. By taking what, in many cases, was non-confrontational “feel good” terminology and warping it for their own purposes, The Elect can, and so far sadly successfully, “Trojan Horse” their belief system into society as a whole.
To start, take for example the term “trigger.” Essentially this word originally arose from self-help groups as a kind of shorthand to remind people to avoid situations that could lead to a relapse into whatever problematic behavior they wish to stop. Triggers were past activities one closely associated with that behavior – don’t hang out at the local bar every day because that makes drinking easier, don’t argue politics with your idiot brother-in-law because that makes going to jail again for no matter how justifiable assault more possible, don’t go down the ice cream aisle at the supermarket because that literally puts weight gain back on the table, etc.
Those triggers varied wildly from behavior to behavior, from individual to individual. What did not vary, though, was the sense that it was incumbent upon the individual to take responsibility for avoiding those triggers, to stay out of harm’s way, as it were.
But, as currently defined, “trigger warnings,” while bearing a facile resemblance to the original meaning, have mutated from an individual responsibility to a societal one. What was once a personal self-improvement tool has become a way for individuals to demand that society refrains from exposing them to anything that could cause even mild discomfort, real or even self-induced, under any circumstances.
If the term still had its original meaning, just as walking into a bar can “trigger” an alcoholic’s relapse, apparently discussing slavery in a college classroom could somehow trigger a relapse into the practice of slavery on campus.
Other examples of this type of dishonest co-option abound:
· Safe Space – Once a term for an environment that allowed its members to express themselves honestly and openly (think group therapy) without fear of judgement is now held to be an environment in which only thoughts and actions that are pre-approved by the group (no matter how that group is delineated) are allowed. Again, seemingly similar but in fact radically different.
· Doing the Work – In self-help groups, it means a constant personal process of self-evaluation, of being careful of addictive or other problematic behaviors. Now, in the current context, it means permanently and eternally attempting to atone for the Original Sin of whiteness, or maleness, or straightness, or any perceived trait that is defined by The Elect as inappropriately advantageous and/or putatively powerful.
· Speaking Your Truth – In many therapeutic settings, speaking from a very personal perspective about how one perceives the world is a useful first step in better understanding oneself and, therefore, be better able to move forward. It is, however, specifically not immutable and to be taken, in the long run, as final and actual truth. In The Elect version, personal truth is just as valid and is to be given the same cloak of universality as actual, real-world truth and therefore cannot be questioned. This has the effect of moving society’s goalposts from “speaking truth to power” to “speaking your own truth to gain power.”
· Crosstalk – Depending on a particular group’s norms, crosstalk can range from asking someone to clarify a statement, to asking if that person knows the reason for his actions, to directly challenging another person’s version of events. This last is usually at least frowned upon if not banned from the environment. The Elect has lifted this premise entirely and foisted it onto society as a whole because it is convenient to use it to silence dissent, disagreement, or mere questions. Doing any one of these things is deemed counter-productive and, according to The Elect, reflects the dissenters’ tacit admission of continuing fault, or at least their purposeful denial of the problem (as they define it).
· Inclusivity – Self-help and therapy groups are inclusive of anyone wishing to get help with whatever problem they may be facing. However, such inclusivity can lead to insularness and an unwillingness to look at those with similar issues who have chosen not to join the group as others, people to be wary of. The Elect take this occasional negative off-shoot of selective inclusivity and extend it to its absurd but in a way logical conclusion – anyone who they think should join the group and has refused is, therefore, by definition less of a person.
· Ridding of Toxic Elements – Hearkening back somewhat to the discussion of triggers, in a therapeutic setting this means to not just avoid potential recovery pitfalls but to also actively seek out and eliminate certain things from your life. The Elect define toxic elements as anyone or anything or any idea that you either do not agree with or could possibly change your way of thinking. (If you remember the many, many articles advising people on how they should handle discussing any even vaguely political issue with their old, out-of-touch, angry, less than progressive parents at a holiday meal – and whether or not they should even attend - you get the drift).
· Lived-In Experience – Like “your truth,” the idea is that everyone’s statement of their own lived-in experience cannot be questioned. Not only is it “your truth,” it actually has the merit of being supported by “your experience,” or at least how you perceived them. The Elect have morphed the “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes” aphorism into a way to silence any criticism while simultaneously denying the very existence of the human empathy that makes the coming together of discrete individuals to form a society possible.
By using the cudgel of familiarity, the slippery slope of “that rings a bell, so it can’t be that weird,” The Elect have bastardized these terms to advance their political and social agenda. This dishonest slither of co-option needs to be seen for what it is – a very narcissistic wolf in a very trusting sheep’s clothing.
Author’s Note: None of the above is meant to denigrate using self-help groups and therapy when appropriate or their possible efficacy. And I’m sorry this trigger warning is at the end of the article.
Thomas Buckley, Thank you for this very insightful and thought-provoking comment! As someone who has, from a very young age (leading me to believe it is intrinsic to my make-up) has enjoyed other human beings and their personal uniqueness, talents and potentials, I find your observations very relatable and RELEVANT.
The mystery that is each individual and the desire to have deeper understanding, so as to connect, calls for some degree of psychological interest. That applies to deeper understanding of ourselves as well.
The fascinating behavior of human beings, still to this day, has me observing and questioning, with curiosity, why people do what they do. This was a natural part of my self-discovery as, at a younger age, my observations had me trying to figure out why THEY were allowed certain behaviors that were not acceptable in my own home. (Naturally, the first inclination was to think that they had "nicer" parents 😄). But, as I grew older, I found myself trying to make sense as to why my peers made certain choices that seemed to do nothing but bring misery into their lives.
Naturally, with age and maturity certain actions still make no sense (at times) in relation to our own or others' personal choices. But, at the very least, a deeper understanding of psychology helps to explain things I otherwise could not figure out without the added knowledge.
While my interest in psychology (why others do what they do) has always been in the interest of understanding for the sake of making more meaningful connections with others, I have found myself deeply disappointed in what I have seen as being "psychological manipulation" with selfish intent.
I recall the time I first realized that language I thought I had understood at one time was now being used as a language unfamiliar to the masses, highjacked by a select group to push their own purposes and agenda. My initial thought was that my advanced age of 63 years had me "behind the times". I was relieved, although surprised to find, that these definitions were not only unfamiliar to me but to people of all ages.
An ideology that has been creeping it's way from institutions of higher learning since the 1970s, until it made it's debut on the public stage with the turmoil that seems to have begun with the election of Trump in 2016, caught many of us totally unaware and (speaking for myself) shocked when beginning to learn the new language and (once familiar) definitions that accompanied it.
I found myself feeling as though I was living in "the twilight zone", a totally foreign place that felt devoid of what I had been taught to believe in relation to loving others, seeing beyond differences in skin color, country of origin, socio-economic status, etc., etc..
I am so thankful for those willing to engage in meaningful and deep conversation as to what we see happening in, what felt for most of my life like, a world with so many possibilities and opportunities to love God, learn, grow and help others.
I was introduced to Robin DiAngelo by a close friend who had read and embraced her book, "White Fragility". When I finally did get the time to read a sampling I had downloaded to my Kindle, I found myself feeling sick to my stomach and saying to myself, "This can't be real. This has to be an "Academic" attempting to make their mark." (My sincere apologies to academics of goodwill and great intelligence. I've never thought or said that about anyone else since.)
And as I continued to watch and, sadly, experience the hurt and division this philosophy has (and continues to) engendered I found myself thinking of the warning given in the Christian Scriptures: "...for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds." ~ 2 Corinthians 11:14-15
"Psychological Manipulation" seems to be a tool of this evil ideology.
Citizens get to participate in the governance of the country. They get to vote. Non-citizens do not.
If non-citizens want to become citizens and participate in the governance of the country there is a process that they can follow to do so. The process is time consuming, requires commitment in terms of energy and financial resources. This is as it should be. Millions of people have followed the process and are now able to participate in the governance of the country.
Why should the process of acquiring citizenship be so difficult?
The only real distinction between ‘native’ citizens and non-citizens is an accident of geography.
The former experience consciousness within a body that happened to be born at a point in space that we have collectively decided is within ‘The United States of America’. This happy coincidence means that they need to spend no time, commitment, energy or money in proving their ‘right’ to citizenship.
The latter (non-citizens), however, have to jump through endless administrative hoops on their journey to citizenship, often whilst subject to intense discrimination, simply because they happened to come into existence outside of the US border (magical lines arbitrarily drawn across unbroken physical space?). Their geography is against them.
Seen through this lens the inherent distinction between citizens and non-citizens seems fairly arbitrary, as does our insistence on the solidity of the borders that define our imagined nations. I think that’s the point that many on the left are trying to make.
When confronted with this specific point of view, how would you argue in favour of citizenship being hard-earned for those unlucky enough to be born outside a specific nation?
It’s just an accident of birth, Dylan, that I wasn’t born into your family. Gimme! Am I no less human than you? How can you deny me!
You really really don’t seem to have the slightest grasp of how countries function as the sole repository of a community built on rights and responsibilities, and the sole locus of those citizens’ representative standing.
You know, having to immigrate itself is pretty difficult. It costs tens of thousands to pay for transport and cartel smugglers. Why not just give everyone everywhere in the world US citizenship? Or since you’re hostile to citizenship, equal status to the now non-citizen nobodies like me whose own ancestors sacrificed mightily in spite of having so little - so that they could wait in line and follow the rules and pay their dues these last three hundred years.
Whenever I go somewhere I’m sure to remind the long-standing community of people who invested their sweat and toil, their planning and investment, who sacrificed to build those communities, who paid generations of taxes, bled in wars, that i am immediately at least coequal to them in belonging and standing and status. After all, it’s a mere accident of birth that I just swanned in to the place they and theirs built. I have some studying to do because I have several elections to vote in in places where I happened not to have been born. Many of these countries are quite affluent and it’s simply not right that I wasn’t bequeathed from birth not only citizenship in such societies, but also the wealth and power to buy my way to the front of the line re: acquiring a second or third or fourth citizenship as might suit my evolving needs.
To be clear, I assume you’re not just talking about the US, right? I was not born fortunate enough but feel I could be an important citizen of Monaco and Liechtenstein. Moreover, I feel the governments and people of Japan and South Korea are excessively guarding the territories and communities in which they, unlike me, they were all born by an accident of fate. Why shouldn’t Appalachian Americans have equal status, standing, rights, and really representation in these places? To prove my commitment, I am willing to charge a flight on a credit card and overstay my tourist visa.
Oh, I see: this only goes one way. And not just global south to global north. It only goes if the destination country is either part of the Anglosphere or a particularly affluent EU country with an exceedingly generous welfare state. It never works in reverse. I have no standing as an accidental non-citizen of any equally or more affluent country that’s not majority white. Only the country with a near-unique, centuries-long history of basing citizenship on the actual commitment to citizenship versus mere blood or ethnicity is not allowed to have its own system of citizenship. Only the country that, particularly since the 1960s, has already welcomed in, continues to welcome in, vast numbers of people from the most culturally distant and comparatively disadvantaged places around the globe is the one which has to abolish the distinction of citizenship and confer equal status on the entire population of the rest of the world.
So what happens once you’ve successfully erased that distinction entirely - anyone who (ironically) is wealthy enough to have flown here or enriched a brutal cartel to smuggle them is just as much a citizen as I am, with my silly selective service card. And since the ability to get here is itself largely an accident of birth, what of the rest? Everyone is now a US citizen. All 7-8 billion of us. All rights for everyone, but I’m assuming only obligations and responsibilities apply to the benighted original US citizens among us, who know only this country and have no other place to go. Dont want to pay taxes here, don’t have to. Don’t want to go to prison for a crime you committed, just take off to the country from whence you came. I mean, we can’t extradite everyone!
Which reminds me: who and what exactly is supposed to provide the enviable life, opportunities, institutions, and programs at scale to serve all of the people who were accidentally not born here, and who can’t be bothered to follow the wait in line - if not out of respect for the country they invited themselves to join, which apparently owes them for not having been born here, at least out of respect for all of those who did scrupulously save their money and wait their turn? How does the United States of America simultaneously erase any distinction between citizen and noncitizen (or even legal resident and illegal entrant) and continue to exist as any kind of coherent polity, any type of functioning representative constitutional democracy? Pardon my presumption, but I’m guessing you also favor robust environmental protections and a solid welfare state. How do you improve on our even currently quite shaky version while making everyone else in the world - or if we’re going to discriminate against those who unluckily, accidentally haven’t arrived yet, every single person who steps across our mostly open southern border or who overstays a visa? You know who has generous social welfare policies? Western democracies that are either low in population, very affluent, and very ethnically and culturally homogenous (or at least the first two of the three). You know which countries are running out of money and whose social welfare systems are fraying? Those which used to be very ethnically and culturally homogenous and who have been flooded by people from other ethnicities and cultures who have proven very expensive to (even unsuccessfully) integrate, and who don’t come close to paying into the system what they take out in benefits.
I’m likewise guessing you care about arresting species loss, protecting habitat for wildlife, preventing destructive pollution from Big Ag, at least slowing the rate of climate change. How do you do that if everyone else in the world has an equal right to be here? How do you do that when anyone and everyone from less developed economies and societies who makes it here is given equal status to live here, and consume and pollute at the rate of the average US citizen.
I’m assuming you still care a little something about those who, perhaps even largely as an accident of birth, weren’t lucky enough to enjoy a comfortable, stable upbringing, or the personal and intellectual and other tools to thrive within this society - the only one they’ve ever known. And yet your immigration policy is hard right-libertarian: anyone who can arrive here or be smuggled here (or who can perhaps telecommute from abroad where they were born by accident, since that’s fairer and more inclusive) gets to compete with and undercut any US citizen. People born in deep intergenerational poverty in West Virginia, or Baltimore.
I’m taking you at your word: being born in another country is merely an accident and should in no way prevent someone from realizing all of the benefits of any US citizen. No US citizen has any unique even partially earned rights by virtue of this being their only home and the only political community which they’ve been eligible to be part of, and commit themselves to. But why stop there? Why isn’t anything of yours directly or indirectly by birth, which I covet, also equally mine as a normative matter?
The words may change but the concepts remain the same. The left's goal is not to talk about concepts honestly but to obfuscate so the average person won’t notice what’s going on. That game becomes impossible when you involve money, goods, and services. In a world of finite resources eventually you arrive at triage. Who gets what?
The finite allocations lead to government-enforced privileges. On a side note, privilege comes from the French "privée : private" and Latin "lege : law" (thank Curtis Yarvin, graymirror.substack.com). Groups compete for privileges in the hopes of building a moat -- once and for all -- around what they want. From corporations to minorities, the game is the same.
Now, with privilege in mind, why would a group of citizens advocate for a non-citizen group? Why are they worried about what we name this lack of privilege? Why has this group started a war on words and those who transgress? In this war, why are they obsessed on behalf of others?
I don't mind the density of the writing, but I would point out that you have a well-deserved reputation for precision of expression, and my guess is many of your readers are here not just for the ideas but for the prose. For those reasons (coupled with the relatively long radio silence), the occasional lapses in proofreading in this piece probably undermine the piece more than they would otherwise... That aside, the analysis here is strong, and I for one like the idea of this space as one for laying out research/concepts/frameworks and working through them, as drafts for future, more polished efforts.
Your analysis is enlightening, as usual. But I think this piece, and likely any others along this line, needs citations. You make a great many claims here about what various institutions have allegedly said, but have provided no sources for these claims. The great thing about writing on the internet is the ability to embed links. Why not do that?
One doesn't need to be a radical lefty or radical libertarian to believe that, at least for local elections, non-citizen residents should be allowed to vote.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Consent of the *governed*; that doesn't necessarily have to be understood as consent of citizens only, even if we traditionally think in those terms. One could be just a boring ol' classical liberal with zero interest in eliminating borders or dissolving the idea of the nation state and still think that if someone is here, and subject to the laws, and paying taxes, and sending their kids to school and all that, their voice should be included when election day comes around.
You might not support "eliminating borders or dissolving the idea of the nation state" but you support removing in practice the key distinction between citizen and non-citizen. I agree that there are many ways to arrive at the belief that non-citizens should have access to the privileges constitutive of citizenship, thereby annulling the distinction in practice, just should underscore that someone lives in a specific locality also lives in the nation state that encompasses it.
Is the right to vote really the key distinction between a citizen and non-citizen? 16 year olds are citizens and can even get a passport, but they can't vote. Prior to 1920, women were citizens, despite not having the vote. The American colonists thought of themselves as citizens even though they had no elected representatives in Parliament. At some point or another (generally in the late 1800s and late 1700s) 40 states allowed non-citizens to vote.
Non-citizens can vote in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, and a whole host of other countries. And to be clear, this isn't argumentum ad populum to say non-citizens ought to be able to vote; this is to refute the claim that the franchise is the key distinction between citizens and non-citizens.
The key distinction is that as a citizen I can move about freely, cannot be deported, and cannot be refused reentry. I need no special permission from the government to be here.
I do not know about other countries you mention but in Denmark not every noncitizen can vote. Still, the determination of who hold optical office is in my view a privilege of being a citizen and encourages people who are not, to become citizens.
That is what this movement in general, and your comment in specific, means to do. To remove or displace the electorate and replace it with a more ameable one. It might seem, on the surface, to be quite logical to let non-citizens vote in various small and not so notably important elections, but it, in the end, destroys communities in that there is no longer a reason for doing the work of earning the franchise, which contains the most fundamental aspect of being a citizen; voting. Indeed, under your plan, what is to stop several thousand hasty immigrants giving themselves the right to vote themselves various freebees in France or England? To move in and loot the treasury, so to speak.
No, this would be an invasion by other, non-military methods. The point of becoming a citizen and its reward is that franchise, which you so casually through away. The point of being a citizen is to preserve the laws and practices by which a society can function. And no society can function without stability, a need to believe in its future,indeed, a society cannot work on transiency.
Prisoners are the governed, but felons can't vote. I believe reinstated suffrage for released felons is fair. I believe once people become documented, of course they should vote. I believe the path to citizenship ought to be easier. Unless citizens are granted specific rights and privileges not granted to non-citizens, what's the point of citizenship? Speaking as someone whose grandmother (a primary caregiver) was undocumented for years. She never expected the right to vote.
I appreciate your observations and comments, Erin. I have no issue with LEGAL Immigration. I enjoy people of all cultures. My mother is Italian and I a naturalized citizen.
I agree with the comment by others concerning the high cost of immigration (which I have no direct knowledge of but have heard it referenced before). It would be interesting to see the break-down of REAL cost involved and explanation as to the reasoning behind the cost.
But, I also feel empathy toward SO MANY immigrants who have applied for legal status but continue to wait in line to do it by the rules. I feel like Biden has done those attempting to honor our laws a GREAT show of disrespect and disservice.
I think what Wes was saying is the cost of doing immigration the legal way is massively out of reach of any of these poor people who want to get into the states. By implication they have to sneak in they can’t afford to play by the rules, it’s too expensive
I don’t know either, I just assumed Wes was right that it cost more money than they had. It rings true because Central American pesos are virtually worthless
The successor ideology, yes indeed, truth and virtue gleaned from the heavens and enforced through limiting debate. They - John McWorters “Elect” - have become intolerant of us, the unwashed and impatient with our wonton ignorance, full steam ahead time for action.
Wesley, I think guest writers a la Bari’s practice, historians could be enlisted too parallel your decoding of this nascent totalitarian impetus with actual examples. I’d be interested in hearing some professor expound on the development of the Weimar Republic as it relates too your take on our predicament.
The US Census is already bad enough in terms of setting up a system of perverse incentives where illegal immigration benefits individual states. For example, consider states that enact government programs (drivers licenses for illegals) that are at odds with the federal government's attempts to restrict illegal immigration.
No, and the key bits here are "without permission," and "instantly." Nothing about allowing non-citizens to vote means we necessarily must extend that privilege to illegal immigrants; we can certainly reserve it for legal residents. And it need not be conferred immediately. In nearly every case where non-citizens can vote, there is a requirement that they be a resident for a certain number of years.
What is particularly cogent here is the way, through Wesley’s canny analysis, Successor ideology takes a real issue—what different rights should belong to citizens and noncitizens— and routes it through the filter of micro aggressions and the censorship of the diversity bureaucracy until, presto, no reasonable person can think or speak anything but the consensus of newspeak: noncitizen = citizen.
One of the core elements of 5gw—Fifth Generation Warfare—is that the target does not know that it is under attack. As I ponder your masterful description of such an amorphous beast as the Successor Regime, I cannot help but think that the Regime itself is a silent weapon in a quiet war. If an attacker could make not only a Manchurian Candidate, but an entire Manchurian Regime, would they?
The point I’m getting at is that I find your work to be crucial in beginning to defend against such an attack, if indeed that is what is happening. The first rule in countering a 5gw attack is to know there is an attack in the first place. Thank you for doing what you do.
I have a theory about the wellspring of political correctness - causation. Political correctness does not allow attribution or causation, you can’t say something happened for a reason. Tabula rasa, blank slate, when there’s a bad outcome it can only be attributed too mismanagement. If you say something happen for a reason you are attacked for being intolerant, hateful, reactionary. That’s why it’s invincible, political correctness is much derided but never defeated. It’s a mechanism for control that is central to successor ideology, it is a tactic, asymmetric warfare. Try to attribute causation in a discussion with your children and be prepared to be seen as a villain.
If you wanna scare yourself, speak to your children, ask them what they think. They have been marinating in this stupidity their entire lives. We have raised a generation of idiots.
Somehow missed this. Awesome synthesis of information. The style works. Hard to believe the author is not inspired by the same smoldering fury he can appeal to in his readers. No better comment than to quote the article itself:
"We can therefore see here what the Successor Regime aims for and how it goes about obtaining its ends, which in turn tells us about the sociology of the movement of which it is a part: the manufacture of consensus around a range of issues through the capture of disciplinary power by adherents sharing a common set of values and goals that seeks to rule out various aspects of political action as presumptively illegitimate (border control, policing, prisons, standardized testing) by policing any debate out of them out of existence. It is a vision of a radically less disciplinary society of the street obtained through a radically more disciplinary society of the seminar room, workplace, board room, and bedroom -- an ongoing distributed process of moral revolution without central direction but converging relentlessly around the same handful of goals — a politics of persuasion without persuasion, abjuring persuasion for coercion."
I agree with the line of argument but,Wesley, this is very dense verbiage. I understand you are writing about people who use similar language but please, let’s not here. Also, I agree the U. of Maryland is second rate. Many second and third tier institutions are among the more fanatical in adopting the Ideology, at least they can be in the vanguard of something.
Some pieces will be dense and some will not be dense. I write in different registers for different subjects; in this case, I'm looking at specific cases but using them to develop a general theory. Though dense, I am striving to make it so that it is not gratuitously so.
I have to agree with jblalock here about the dense verbiage. Reading this was very tough sledding, especially since it was also sloppily written. The multiple misplaced references and instances of outright bad grammar were jarring. You can make a clear, cogent argument that’s both compelling and a bit easier to read.
Wesley: I’ve seen enough of your writing to know that you have a great ability to express complex ideas in a clear and straightforward manner. Piling clause upon clause blunts the force and persuasiveness of the writing.
I don't have an issue with the language. In fact, the language you use is one of the pleasures of reading your writing. It clearly condenses subtle points.
In fact, if you go and google NYTimes or other periodicals from 90s and before, you will often find the kind of language and syntax. Passage of time has diluted writing.
Please don't change.
This was my thought as well. Wesleys language is dense because it compacts many ideas into single sentences. I prefer this style of writing personally, but I'm sure the other feedback he's getting is just as valuable.
I want to second what others are saying- excellent analysis, very worthwhile article that I am glad to have read. I don't have an issue with the language or concepts. What causes me to re-read paragraphs multiple times until I have digested them is the compound sentences. Consider it a gentle suggestion from someone who doesn't approach your own skill at writing. One thought per sentence would make it easier to process.
If there's any place appropriate for someting a little "dense" for the average reader, then Substack would seem to be it.
It was tough in parts. But I sort of didn't mind working through some of the dense bits because so much of it paid off. There is some freshness here ( I find a lot of writers repeating the same points when it comes to this subject matter) in terms of perspective. The whole pathway of misunderstood bad idea jumping from student bureaucracies to government bureaucracies was really well stated. Loved it!
Just to give my own two cents worth of encouragement (our hyperinflation makes that old expression hilariously sound almost insulting), I didn't find it dense at all and love how you have a wide vocabulary and are willing to use it! Your writing is far from sloppy and clearly has a lot of effort put into it, while being well thought out and a breath of fresh air to read.
In case the feedback may be helpful at all, I do agree with the sentiment that it could have been a little easier to read, but I don't think it was due to verbiage, and I didn't find it that difficult myself. I think Laurie Mitchell Dunn has a good point about it having something to do with grammar, but I'm not sure exactly what it was about it, I suppose since grammar isn't as easy as everyone acts like it is, and writing is hard and just something that takes practice, more than anything, to be able to do well.
Keep it up. The average reading level has gone way down; we all read and write way less than people used to. Articles like this are part of how we will collectively get reading and writing levels back up. And our culture today is so cold, we all can be even without intending to be; yet it's well understood how regular exposure to pain only increases sensitivity to experiencing it (I suspect that's part of how "microaggressions" have been turned into a genuine experience; through society becoming collectively vulnerable in decline and the overclass psychologists then exploiting that thinking they have all the answers).
So at risk of sounding sensitive or projecting in my rebellion against that culture — make sure you try not to take any of the criticism from your readers that want you to improve the wrong way, since those of us among the underclass are all on the same side. :)
This new Newspeak has made us all forget how to communicate and understand one another. Articles like this are how we practically rebel, and places like Substack that still preserve freedom of speech—our ability to listen and discuss with each other—are how we will escape our historical epoch's intellectual vacuum that we've all become trapped in.
To add my two cents—I found the piece entirely readable and, as is typical when reading an essay by Wesley, also found myself enjoying his rich but clear writing style.
The University of Maryland is extremely good in my particular STEM field. It's jarring to seeing it called "second tier".
Second tier is too high for U of M.
This isn’t a criticism of the original commenter but I find this whole thread a distraction. Engage with the arguments or don’t, and if you don’t like it why are you subscribed. Paternalistic, patronizing comments are the worst.
On the subject of successor/woke/progressive manipulation of language, I thought (if not too presumptuous and apologies if it is) a piece I wrote for another publication.
John McWhorter, the distinguished linguist, has an ecclesiastical term for the members of the current woke/progressive/CRT movement: The Elect. He has chosen that term to emphasize the fact that the movement is not just like a religion, but actually is a religion (or at least a cult).
All religions are alike in certain ways, especially in the need for a common terminology, a series of definitions and words that make it possible to function within said religion. Sometimes these terms are spun out of whole cloth, appearing sui generis either at the beginning or as time goes by. Sometimes these terms are taken from “the outside world” and may, or may not, retain a close relation to their original meaning.
With The Elect (capitalization intentional), much of the terminology is actually taken directly from the self-help and therapy movements. This usurpation gives the terms a feeling to the public of general familiarity, lending a certain comfort when encountering them. By taking what, in many cases, was non-confrontational “feel good” terminology and warping it for their own purposes, The Elect can, and so far sadly successfully, “Trojan Horse” their belief system into society as a whole.
To start, take for example the term “trigger.” Essentially this word originally arose from self-help groups as a kind of shorthand to remind people to avoid situations that could lead to a relapse into whatever problematic behavior they wish to stop. Triggers were past activities one closely associated with that behavior – don’t hang out at the local bar every day because that makes drinking easier, don’t argue politics with your idiot brother-in-law because that makes going to jail again for no matter how justifiable assault more possible, don’t go down the ice cream aisle at the supermarket because that literally puts weight gain back on the table, etc.
Those triggers varied wildly from behavior to behavior, from individual to individual. What did not vary, though, was the sense that it was incumbent upon the individual to take responsibility for avoiding those triggers, to stay out of harm’s way, as it were.
But, as currently defined, “trigger warnings,” while bearing a facile resemblance to the original meaning, have mutated from an individual responsibility to a societal one. What was once a personal self-improvement tool has become a way for individuals to demand that society refrains from exposing them to anything that could cause even mild discomfort, real or even self-induced, under any circumstances.
If the term still had its original meaning, just as walking into a bar can “trigger” an alcoholic’s relapse, apparently discussing slavery in a college classroom could somehow trigger a relapse into the practice of slavery on campus.
Other examples of this type of dishonest co-option abound:
· Safe Space – Once a term for an environment that allowed its members to express themselves honestly and openly (think group therapy) without fear of judgement is now held to be an environment in which only thoughts and actions that are pre-approved by the group (no matter how that group is delineated) are allowed. Again, seemingly similar but in fact radically different.
· Doing the Work – In self-help groups, it means a constant personal process of self-evaluation, of being careful of addictive or other problematic behaviors. Now, in the current context, it means permanently and eternally attempting to atone for the Original Sin of whiteness, or maleness, or straightness, or any perceived trait that is defined by The Elect as inappropriately advantageous and/or putatively powerful.
· Speaking Your Truth – In many therapeutic settings, speaking from a very personal perspective about how one perceives the world is a useful first step in better understanding oneself and, therefore, be better able to move forward. It is, however, specifically not immutable and to be taken, in the long run, as final and actual truth. In The Elect version, personal truth is just as valid and is to be given the same cloak of universality as actual, real-world truth and therefore cannot be questioned. This has the effect of moving society’s goalposts from “speaking truth to power” to “speaking your own truth to gain power.”
· Crosstalk – Depending on a particular group’s norms, crosstalk can range from asking someone to clarify a statement, to asking if that person knows the reason for his actions, to directly challenging another person’s version of events. This last is usually at least frowned upon if not banned from the environment. The Elect has lifted this premise entirely and foisted it onto society as a whole because it is convenient to use it to silence dissent, disagreement, or mere questions. Doing any one of these things is deemed counter-productive and, according to The Elect, reflects the dissenters’ tacit admission of continuing fault, or at least their purposeful denial of the problem (as they define it).
· Inclusivity – Self-help and therapy groups are inclusive of anyone wishing to get help with whatever problem they may be facing. However, such inclusivity can lead to insularness and an unwillingness to look at those with similar issues who have chosen not to join the group as others, people to be wary of. The Elect take this occasional negative off-shoot of selective inclusivity and extend it to its absurd but in a way logical conclusion – anyone who they think should join the group and has refused is, therefore, by definition less of a person.
· Ridding of Toxic Elements – Hearkening back somewhat to the discussion of triggers, in a therapeutic setting this means to not just avoid potential recovery pitfalls but to also actively seek out and eliminate certain things from your life. The Elect define toxic elements as anyone or anything or any idea that you either do not agree with or could possibly change your way of thinking. (If you remember the many, many articles advising people on how they should handle discussing any even vaguely political issue with their old, out-of-touch, angry, less than progressive parents at a holiday meal – and whether or not they should even attend - you get the drift).
· Lived-In Experience – Like “your truth,” the idea is that everyone’s statement of their own lived-in experience cannot be questioned. Not only is it “your truth,” it actually has the merit of being supported by “your experience,” or at least how you perceived them. The Elect have morphed the “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes” aphorism into a way to silence any criticism while simultaneously denying the very existence of the human empathy that makes the coming together of discrete individuals to form a society possible.
By using the cudgel of familiarity, the slippery slope of “that rings a bell, so it can’t be that weird,” The Elect have bastardized these terms to advance their political and social agenda. This dishonest slither of co-option needs to be seen for what it is – a very narcissistic wolf in a very trusting sheep’s clothing.
Author’s Note: None of the above is meant to denigrate using self-help groups and therapy when appropriate or their possible efficacy. And I’m sorry this trigger warning is at the end of the article.
Thomas Sowell beat McWhorter's "The Elect" by a decade and a half or so: "The Vision of The Anointed"
And decades later, Sowell's same question still begs, "Is Reality Optional?"
Thomas Buckley, Thank you for this very insightful and thought-provoking comment! As someone who has, from a very young age (leading me to believe it is intrinsic to my make-up) has enjoyed other human beings and their personal uniqueness, talents and potentials, I find your observations very relatable and RELEVANT.
The mystery that is each individual and the desire to have deeper understanding, so as to connect, calls for some degree of psychological interest. That applies to deeper understanding of ourselves as well.
The fascinating behavior of human beings, still to this day, has me observing and questioning, with curiosity, why people do what they do. This was a natural part of my self-discovery as, at a younger age, my observations had me trying to figure out why THEY were allowed certain behaviors that were not acceptable in my own home. (Naturally, the first inclination was to think that they had "nicer" parents 😄). But, as I grew older, I found myself trying to make sense as to why my peers made certain choices that seemed to do nothing but bring misery into their lives.
Naturally, with age and maturity certain actions still make no sense (at times) in relation to our own or others' personal choices. But, at the very least, a deeper understanding of psychology helps to explain things I otherwise could not figure out without the added knowledge.
While my interest in psychology (why others do what they do) has always been in the interest of understanding for the sake of making more meaningful connections with others, I have found myself deeply disappointed in what I have seen as being "psychological manipulation" with selfish intent.
I recall the time I first realized that language I thought I had understood at one time was now being used as a language unfamiliar to the masses, highjacked by a select group to push their own purposes and agenda. My initial thought was that my advanced age of 63 years had me "behind the times". I was relieved, although surprised to find, that these definitions were not only unfamiliar to me but to people of all ages.
An ideology that has been creeping it's way from institutions of higher learning since the 1970s, until it made it's debut on the public stage with the turmoil that seems to have begun with the election of Trump in 2016, caught many of us totally unaware and (speaking for myself) shocked when beginning to learn the new language and (once familiar) definitions that accompanied it.
I found myself feeling as though I was living in "the twilight zone", a totally foreign place that felt devoid of what I had been taught to believe in relation to loving others, seeing beyond differences in skin color, country of origin, socio-economic status, etc., etc..
I am so thankful for those willing to engage in meaningful and deep conversation as to what we see happening in, what felt for most of my life like, a world with so many possibilities and opportunities to love God, learn, grow and help others.
I was introduced to Robin DiAngelo by a close friend who had read and embraced her book, "White Fragility". When I finally did get the time to read a sampling I had downloaded to my Kindle, I found myself feeling sick to my stomach and saying to myself, "This can't be real. This has to be an "Academic" attempting to make their mark." (My sincere apologies to academics of goodwill and great intelligence. I've never thought or said that about anyone else since.)
And as I continued to watch and, sadly, experience the hurt and division this philosophy has (and continues to) engendered I found myself thinking of the warning given in the Christian Scriptures: "...for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds." ~ 2 Corinthians 11:14-15
"Psychological Manipulation" seems to be a tool of this evil ideology.
Exactly
Get an editor dude and put the thesaurus down until you are old enough to use it properly.
My point of view.............I'll keep it simple.
Citizens get to participate in the governance of the country. They get to vote. Non-citizens do not.
If non-citizens want to become citizens and participate in the governance of the country there is a process that they can follow to do so. The process is time consuming, requires commitment in terms of energy and financial resources. This is as it should be. Millions of people have followed the process and are now able to participate in the governance of the country.
Why should the process of acquiring citizenship be so difficult?
The only real distinction between ‘native’ citizens and non-citizens is an accident of geography.
The former experience consciousness within a body that happened to be born at a point in space that we have collectively decided is within ‘The United States of America’. This happy coincidence means that they need to spend no time, commitment, energy or money in proving their ‘right’ to citizenship.
The latter (non-citizens), however, have to jump through endless administrative hoops on their journey to citizenship, often whilst subject to intense discrimination, simply because they happened to come into existence outside of the US border (magical lines arbitrarily drawn across unbroken physical space?). Their geography is against them.
Seen through this lens the inherent distinction between citizens and non-citizens seems fairly arbitrary, as does our insistence on the solidity of the borders that define our imagined nations. I think that’s the point that many on the left are trying to make.
When confronted with this specific point of view, how would you argue in favour of citizenship being hard-earned for those unlucky enough to be born outside a specific nation?
Perfect example of how the Left normalizes the abnormal by elevating any non traditional, legally unsupported paradigm into a legitimate dialectic.
Sounds like you have been up to your old tricks. Drinking way too much at the White Horse.
In general I don't take the post modern bullshit of the left seriously.
It’s just an accident of birth, Dylan, that I wasn’t born into your family. Gimme! Am I no less human than you? How can you deny me!
You really really don’t seem to have the slightest grasp of how countries function as the sole repository of a community built on rights and responsibilities, and the sole locus of those citizens’ representative standing.
You know, having to immigrate itself is pretty difficult. It costs tens of thousands to pay for transport and cartel smugglers. Why not just give everyone everywhere in the world US citizenship? Or since you’re hostile to citizenship, equal status to the now non-citizen nobodies like me whose own ancestors sacrificed mightily in spite of having so little - so that they could wait in line and follow the rules and pay their dues these last three hundred years.
Whenever I go somewhere I’m sure to remind the long-standing community of people who invested their sweat and toil, their planning and investment, who sacrificed to build those communities, who paid generations of taxes, bled in wars, that i am immediately at least coequal to them in belonging and standing and status. After all, it’s a mere accident of birth that I just swanned in to the place they and theirs built. I have some studying to do because I have several elections to vote in in places where I happened not to have been born. Many of these countries are quite affluent and it’s simply not right that I wasn’t bequeathed from birth not only citizenship in such societies, but also the wealth and power to buy my way to the front of the line re: acquiring a second or third or fourth citizenship as might suit my evolving needs.
To be clear, I assume you’re not just talking about the US, right? I was not born fortunate enough but feel I could be an important citizen of Monaco and Liechtenstein. Moreover, I feel the governments and people of Japan and South Korea are excessively guarding the territories and communities in which they, unlike me, they were all born by an accident of fate. Why shouldn’t Appalachian Americans have equal status, standing, rights, and really representation in these places? To prove my commitment, I am willing to charge a flight on a credit card and overstay my tourist visa.
Oh, I see: this only goes one way. And not just global south to global north. It only goes if the destination country is either part of the Anglosphere or a particularly affluent EU country with an exceedingly generous welfare state. It never works in reverse. I have no standing as an accidental non-citizen of any equally or more affluent country that’s not majority white. Only the country with a near-unique, centuries-long history of basing citizenship on the actual commitment to citizenship versus mere blood or ethnicity is not allowed to have its own system of citizenship. Only the country that, particularly since the 1960s, has already welcomed in, continues to welcome in, vast numbers of people from the most culturally distant and comparatively disadvantaged places around the globe is the one which has to abolish the distinction of citizenship and confer equal status on the entire population of the rest of the world.
So what happens once you’ve successfully erased that distinction entirely - anyone who (ironically) is wealthy enough to have flown here or enriched a brutal cartel to smuggle them is just as much a citizen as I am, with my silly selective service card. And since the ability to get here is itself largely an accident of birth, what of the rest? Everyone is now a US citizen. All 7-8 billion of us. All rights for everyone, but I’m assuming only obligations and responsibilities apply to the benighted original US citizens among us, who know only this country and have no other place to go. Dont want to pay taxes here, don’t have to. Don’t want to go to prison for a crime you committed, just take off to the country from whence you came. I mean, we can’t extradite everyone!
Which reminds me: who and what exactly is supposed to provide the enviable life, opportunities, institutions, and programs at scale to serve all of the people who were accidentally not born here, and who can’t be bothered to follow the wait in line - if not out of respect for the country they invited themselves to join, which apparently owes them for not having been born here, at least out of respect for all of those who did scrupulously save their money and wait their turn? How does the United States of America simultaneously erase any distinction between citizen and noncitizen (or even legal resident and illegal entrant) and continue to exist as any kind of coherent polity, any type of functioning representative constitutional democracy? Pardon my presumption, but I’m guessing you also favor robust environmental protections and a solid welfare state. How do you improve on our even currently quite shaky version while making everyone else in the world - or if we’re going to discriminate against those who unluckily, accidentally haven’t arrived yet, every single person who steps across our mostly open southern border or who overstays a visa? You know who has generous social welfare policies? Western democracies that are either low in population, very affluent, and very ethnically and culturally homogenous (or at least the first two of the three). You know which countries are running out of money and whose social welfare systems are fraying? Those which used to be very ethnically and culturally homogenous and who have been flooded by people from other ethnicities and cultures who have proven very expensive to (even unsuccessfully) integrate, and who don’t come close to paying into the system what they take out in benefits.
I’m likewise guessing you care about arresting species loss, protecting habitat for wildlife, preventing destructive pollution from Big Ag, at least slowing the rate of climate change. How do you do that if everyone else in the world has an equal right to be here? How do you do that when anyone and everyone from less developed economies and societies who makes it here is given equal status to live here, and consume and pollute at the rate of the average US citizen.
I’m assuming you still care a little something about those who, perhaps even largely as an accident of birth, weren’t lucky enough to enjoy a comfortable, stable upbringing, or the personal and intellectual and other tools to thrive within this society - the only one they’ve ever known. And yet your immigration policy is hard right-libertarian: anyone who can arrive here or be smuggled here (or who can perhaps telecommute from abroad where they were born by accident, since that’s fairer and more inclusive) gets to compete with and undercut any US citizen. People born in deep intergenerational poverty in West Virginia, or Baltimore.
I’m taking you at your word: being born in another country is merely an accident and should in no way prevent someone from realizing all of the benefits of any US citizen. No US citizen has any unique even partially earned rights by virtue of this being their only home and the only political community which they’ve been eligible to be part of, and commit themselves to. But why stop there? Why isn’t anything of yours directly or indirectly by birth, which I covet, also equally mine as a normative matter?
The words may change but the concepts remain the same. The left's goal is not to talk about concepts honestly but to obfuscate so the average person won’t notice what’s going on. That game becomes impossible when you involve money, goods, and services. In a world of finite resources eventually you arrive at triage. Who gets what?
The finite allocations lead to government-enforced privileges. On a side note, privilege comes from the French "privée : private" and Latin "lege : law" (thank Curtis Yarvin, graymirror.substack.com). Groups compete for privileges in the hopes of building a moat -- once and for all -- around what they want. From corporations to minorities, the game is the same.
Now, with privilege in mind, why would a group of citizens advocate for a non-citizen group? Why are they worried about what we name this lack of privilege? Why has this group started a war on words and those who transgress? In this war, why are they obsessed on behalf of others?
I don't mind the density of the writing, but I would point out that you have a well-deserved reputation for precision of expression, and my guess is many of your readers are here not just for the ideas but for the prose. For those reasons (coupled with the relatively long radio silence), the occasional lapses in proofreading in this piece probably undermine the piece more than they would otherwise... That aside, the analysis here is strong, and I for one like the idea of this space as one for laying out research/concepts/frameworks and working through them, as drafts for future, more polished efforts.
Your analysis is enlightening, as usual. But I think this piece, and likely any others along this line, needs citations. You make a great many claims here about what various institutions have allegedly said, but have provided no sources for these claims. The great thing about writing on the internet is the ability to embed links. Why not do that?
One doesn't need to be a radical lefty or radical libertarian to believe that, at least for local elections, non-citizen residents should be allowed to vote.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Consent of the *governed*; that doesn't necessarily have to be understood as consent of citizens only, even if we traditionally think in those terms. One could be just a boring ol' classical liberal with zero interest in eliminating borders or dissolving the idea of the nation state and still think that if someone is here, and subject to the laws, and paying taxes, and sending their kids to school and all that, their voice should be included when election day comes around.
You might not support "eliminating borders or dissolving the idea of the nation state" but you support removing in practice the key distinction between citizen and non-citizen. I agree that there are many ways to arrive at the belief that non-citizens should have access to the privileges constitutive of citizenship, thereby annulling the distinction in practice, just should underscore that someone lives in a specific locality also lives in the nation state that encompasses it.
Is the right to vote really the key distinction between a citizen and non-citizen? 16 year olds are citizens and can even get a passport, but they can't vote. Prior to 1920, women were citizens, despite not having the vote. The American colonists thought of themselves as citizens even though they had no elected representatives in Parliament. At some point or another (generally in the late 1800s and late 1700s) 40 states allowed non-citizens to vote.
Non-citizens can vote in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, and a whole host of other countries. And to be clear, this isn't argumentum ad populum to say non-citizens ought to be able to vote; this is to refute the claim that the franchise is the key distinction between citizens and non-citizens.
The key distinction is that as a citizen I can move about freely, cannot be deported, and cannot be refused reentry. I need no special permission from the government to be here.
I do not know about other countries you mention but in Denmark not every noncitizen can vote. Still, the determination of who hold optical office is in my view a privilege of being a citizen and encourages people who are not, to become citizens.
"Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?”
― Bertolt Brecht
That is what this movement in general, and your comment in specific, means to do. To remove or displace the electorate and replace it with a more ameable one. It might seem, on the surface, to be quite logical to let non-citizens vote in various small and not so notably important elections, but it, in the end, destroys communities in that there is no longer a reason for doing the work of earning the franchise, which contains the most fundamental aspect of being a citizen; voting. Indeed, under your plan, what is to stop several thousand hasty immigrants giving themselves the right to vote themselves various freebees in France or England? To move in and loot the treasury, so to speak.
No, this would be an invasion by other, non-military methods. The point of becoming a citizen and its reward is that franchise, which you so casually through away. The point of being a citizen is to preserve the laws and practices by which a society can function. And no society can function without stability, a need to believe in its future,indeed, a society cannot work on transiency.
Hear, hear!
Prisoners are the governed, but felons can't vote. I believe reinstated suffrage for released felons is fair. I believe once people become documented, of course they should vote. I believe the path to citizenship ought to be easier. Unless citizens are granted specific rights and privileges not granted to non-citizens, what's the point of citizenship? Speaking as someone whose grandmother (a primary caregiver) was undocumented for years. She never expected the right to vote.
I appreciate your observations and comments, Erin. I have no issue with LEGAL Immigration. I enjoy people of all cultures. My mother is Italian and I a naturalized citizen.
I agree with the comment by others concerning the high cost of immigration (which I have no direct knowledge of but have heard it referenced before). It would be interesting to see the break-down of REAL cost involved and explanation as to the reasoning behind the cost.
But, I also feel empathy toward SO MANY immigrants who have applied for legal status but continue to wait in line to do it by the rules. I feel like Biden has done those attempting to honor our laws a GREAT show of disrespect and disservice.
Wesley touches on this when he says that the illegal aliens can’t afford to do the process by the rules.
Afford in what way?
I think what Wes was saying is the cost of doing immigration the legal way is massively out of reach of any of these poor people who want to get into the states. By implication they have to sneak in they can’t afford to play by the rules, it’s too expensive
My grandmother was a pensioner. She lived with my family (so that covered housing). But I don't understand what is expensive about the process.
I don’t know either, I just assumed Wes was right that it cost more money than they had. It rings true because Central American pesos are virtually worthless
The successor ideology, yes indeed, truth and virtue gleaned from the heavens and enforced through limiting debate. They - John McWorters “Elect” - have become intolerant of us, the unwashed and impatient with our wonton ignorance, full steam ahead time for action.
Wesley, I think guest writers a la Bari’s practice, historians could be enlisted too parallel your decoding of this nascent totalitarian impetus with actual examples. I’d be interested in hearing some professor expound on the development of the Weimar Republic as it relates too your take on our predicament.
The US Census is already bad enough in terms of setting up a system of perverse incentives where illegal immigration benefits individual states. For example, consider states that enact government programs (drivers licenses for illegals) that are at odds with the federal government's attempts to restrict illegal immigration.
So against non citizens voting.
No, and the key bits here are "without permission," and "instantly." Nothing about allowing non-citizens to vote means we necessarily must extend that privilege to illegal immigrants; we can certainly reserve it for legal residents. And it need not be conferred immediately. In nearly every case where non-citizens can vote, there is a requirement that they be a resident for a certain number of years.
This was a struggle to read, and while I think I get your point I hope you can lower the density in the future.
Well done! love the exploration of inherent contradiction in the “new order.” What a terrible and frightening time. I worry for the future.
What is particularly cogent here is the way, through Wesley’s canny analysis, Successor ideology takes a real issue—what different rights should belong to citizens and noncitizens— and routes it through the filter of micro aggressions and the censorship of the diversity bureaucracy until, presto, no reasonable person can think or speak anything but the consensus of newspeak: noncitizen = citizen.
One of the core elements of 5gw—Fifth Generation Warfare—is that the target does not know that it is under attack. As I ponder your masterful description of such an amorphous beast as the Successor Regime, I cannot help but think that the Regime itself is a silent weapon in a quiet war. If an attacker could make not only a Manchurian Candidate, but an entire Manchurian Regime, would they?
The point I’m getting at is that I find your work to be crucial in beginning to defend against such an attack, if indeed that is what is happening. The first rule in countering a 5gw attack is to know there is an attack in the first place. Thank you for doing what you do.
Also, the last sentence was pure mastery.
Brilliant. Start to finish.
I have a theory about the wellspring of political correctness - causation. Political correctness does not allow attribution or causation, you can’t say something happened for a reason. Tabula rasa, blank slate, when there’s a bad outcome it can only be attributed too mismanagement. If you say something happen for a reason you are attacked for being intolerant, hateful, reactionary. That’s why it’s invincible, political correctness is much derided but never defeated. It’s a mechanism for control that is central to successor ideology, it is a tactic, asymmetric warfare. Try to attribute causation in a discussion with your children and be prepared to be seen as a villain.
If you wanna scare yourself, speak to your children, ask them what they think. They have been marinating in this stupidity their entire lives. We have raised a generation of idiots.
Somehow missed this. Awesome synthesis of information. The style works. Hard to believe the author is not inspired by the same smoldering fury he can appeal to in his readers. No better comment than to quote the article itself:
"We can therefore see here what the Successor Regime aims for and how it goes about obtaining its ends, which in turn tells us about the sociology of the movement of which it is a part: the manufacture of consensus around a range of issues through the capture of disciplinary power by adherents sharing a common set of values and goals that seeks to rule out various aspects of political action as presumptively illegitimate (border control, policing, prisons, standardized testing) by policing any debate out of them out of existence. It is a vision of a radically less disciplinary society of the street obtained through a radically more disciplinary society of the seminar room, workplace, board room, and bedroom -- an ongoing distributed process of moral revolution without central direction but converging relentlessly around the same handful of goals — a politics of persuasion without persuasion, abjuring persuasion for coercion."