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.
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.
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.
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.
Another example of this is Tucker Carlson being called a white nationalist for suggesting that democrats want to 'replace' voters with immigrants to help their electoral chances. (https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-endorses-white-supremacist-replacement-conspiracy-theory-2021-4) The word replacement was a mistake, because it suggests the so-called White Replacement theory, but he could have expressed the same sentiment like this: "Democrats want immigration because they think immigrants will vote democrat, among other reasons." Not only is that not a racist idea, it happens to be a true idea too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Another example of this is Tucker Carlson being called a white nationalist for suggesting that democrats want to 'replace' voters with immigrants to help their electoral chances. (https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-endorses-white-supremacist-replacement-conspiracy-theory-2021-4) The word replacement was a mistake, because it suggests the so-called White Replacement theory, but he could have expressed the same sentiment like this: "Democrats want immigration because they think immigrants will vote democrat, among other reasons." Not only is that not a racist idea, it happens to be a true idea too.
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.
Brilliant. Start to finish.
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.
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.