This is my web log which contains all sorts of random thoughts I felt it necessary to record for posterity here. I've recorded ideas on all sorts of topics in here so I hope you find something interesting, and maybe even useful!
Peak Woke?
2024-05-09. Politics. Rating 4. ID 2341.
I have written a few posts on the subject of free speech over several years. The trend for the last 20 years, in the period which I would characterise as being primarily driven by the rise of woke-ism, has been for free speech to be diminished as cancel culture has become more common, social pressure has been applied to people for what the woke mob see as violence in speech, and "hate speech" laws have limited what it is even legal to say.
Possibly the main source of these draconian limitations has been universities. Woke mentality arose from postmodernism, which has taken over from Marxism as the major destructive philosophical influence there. Many people would actually claim that postmodernism is simply Marxism applied with a more social than economic emphasis, but I tend to treat it as a seperate ideology.
But there is hope. As tends to happen with all corrupt belief systems, people are starting to realise how lacking in rigour and objectivity woke ideology really is. There is rebellion against the more radical impositions we are expected to live with. Free speech is back!
I spend a bit of time on social media most days. It's nothing too excessive, but it would be unusual for me not to check Facebook, YouTube, and X (Twitter) several times most days, and add a few comments on most occasions. In the past, especially on X, which is the main place where robust discussions take place, it would be difficult to express a view contrary to woke norms, because you might be censored by Twitter (as it was called then) or at least be attacked by numerous "social justice warriors" to the extent that it was difficult to make any point at all contrary to the norms established at the time.
Since Elon Musk took over Twitter (now X, why did he rename it?), things are much better. There are still plenty of SJWs, but now people with views contrary to that can get a fair say. It's what political discussion should have been all along: often quite extreme, but at least fair to all sides.
So it's now possible to discuss a "trans woman" (really a man) being allowed to compete in women's sports, for example. And if you consider that person really is a man, you can say so without having your access disabled or the tweet deleted.
I have followed an organisation called the "Free Speech Union" here in New Zealand for many years, and they have recently created a unit to help academics express opinions which might have resulted in significant negative consequences in the past. Free speech in universities is a big problem, and surveys indicate that many people in those institutions feel as if they cannot express their views. Also, many speakers have had been cancelled at university run venues.
So while universities are overwhelmingly left oriented, and therefore likely to have succumbed to woke ideology, it is even worse than that because the remainder who have enough independence of though to resist it cannot make their contrary opinions known. They tend to "self-censor".
I know people who work in universities who say that when they express unpopular opinions there, they regularly get people saying to them afterwards how happy they are to hear someone saying something they would like to say themselves, but are too scared to. Considering universities are supposed to be a place where a free exchange of ideas is encouraged, this seems like a genuinely dangerous trend.
But as I said, it does seem to be getting better, so there is reason to think we have passed "peak woke". Unfortunately, as ideologies die, they tend to become desperate to have as much influence as possible in the time that remains (by the way, I'm being a bit overdramatic here, and I don't think woke ideology will ever disappear completely). So we should expect to see some increasingly hysterical nonsense ahead, which it is important to resist.
I don't expect that my comments on social media are likely to change the views of people who are deeply dedicated to a woke mindset, but I do hope they might have some positive outcomes. First, anyone on the fence might see that my views have merit and be more influenced away from woke-ism. Second, people who share my views but are too scared to make them known publicly might feel supported. And finally, maybe, just maybe, it will put a tiny element of doubt into my opponents' minds.
Actually, there is one other thing too. If I present my views, and they are shown to be false or weak in some way, through a free exchange of ideas, maybe I will change my mind. So debate acts as a test of my own ideas too, which is really what free speech should be all about. The best way to defeat bad ideas is too make them public and subject them to scrutiny.
And that isn't just an idle comment. Look back 10 or more years and you will see I used to be far more accepting of the ideas the modern left espouse now. I wasn't so extreme that I would call myself a social justice warrior, but I was tending in that direction, and always voted for leftist parties. Anyone can change. All it really takes is some time and exposure to contrary views. All it really takes is free speech.
A few months back there was a popular internet meme that alleged that men think about the Roman Empire far too much. It originated on TikTok, and before that there was something similar on Instagram. These services aren't exactly well known for their quality content, so that might tell you quite a lot about the meme's credibility, put let's move on from that. Generally it involved women asking men how often they thought about Rome, and received answers such as "many times per day".
There are many reasons people might quite sensibly think about Rome, of course. It was the greatest empire of its time, had a lot of admirable characters (as well as many which might be less commendable), and was one of the main influences on the Western world today.
One of the most famous events involving Rome was its fall. The great empire gradually faded and now just a single country is left. Sure, it's a very cool country, with a lot going for it, but there is no empire any more. And the same can be said for every other empire the world has ever seen, including arguably the greatest of them all, the British Empire.
Is it inevitable that every empire, or most dominant country (because empires aren't fashionable any more, at least in their traditional form) eventually fails? Well, as I said, that is what the history of the world shows us, but what about today?
Today, the US would be the modern equivalent of the dominant empire. There is no emperor, and there is no large area of countries which have been militarily assimilated into a whole, but the US might be seen as the head of an economic and cultural empire, to some extent maintained by its overwhelming military capacity, but also by "soft" power.
Many people say the signs of the demise of the "American Empire" are here today for all to see. They see equivalents in the latter days of Rome and the current situation in the Western world, especially the US. So are we seeing the demise of the American (and more broadly, Western) Empire?
Unfortunately, I think that is quite possible. I say unfortunately here because whatever faults the US might have (and there are plenty) it is arguably the most benign power to ever dominate the world.
In the case of powerful hegemonies, failure usually comes from within. The society suffers from increasing conflict, lack of common beliefs, lack of confidence, and even self-loathing. Does anyone deny that this is what we are seeing in the Western world today?
Despite the fact that the West has many positives, it seems to feel as if it is unworthy and so easily allows increasing acceptance of inferior ideas to destroy it from within. Why do Western countries allow so many migrants across the border? Why do they feel as if they need to apologise for the past? Why do they have to capitulate to inferior, primitive ideas which should have no place in the modern world?
Maybe it's guilt for the past, or for being successful, or maybe it's related to the demise of religion, or maybe people have such a good standard of life now, despite current economic issues, that they feel guilty, or maybe even directionless because their lives are too easy.
All of these are probably factors, but I should add some notes here in the form of some nuance on these issues...
There were things which happened in the past (war, slavery, etc) which we wouldn't accept today, but those happened in every culture, and it was the British who primarily eliminated slavery and in some ways brought peace to the world through Pax Britannica (interestingly modelled on Pax Romana).
And why apologise for being successful? Without the political and scientific achievements of the West, the world would be a far worse place than it is. If other cultures weren't as successful we shouldn't necessarily denigrate them, but let's be proud of what we have achieved.
My position on religion should be well known to readers of this blog. I don't think religions are true, but they do create a useful social and philosophical environment which many people find beneficial. Without them, some people feel lost.
The fact that many people do have such easy lives might cause them to pursue irrational ideologies to feel more like struggling victims. I guess it is no coincidence that most of the protestors for dubious causes like climate change and Palestine are quite comfortable middle class people and university types.
The problem is, of course, that these social trends aren't based on rationality, so they are difficult to argue against or dismiss. I'm afraid that we really might be seeing the demise of the greatest era in history. Who will dominate next? China? Islam? Not a happy thought, is it?
One aspect of modern politics which seems puzzling to many is how different parties in various countries in the Western world all seem to have similar policies. People often comment on how it does't matter which way they vote, things don't change much. In recent times this phenomenon has primarily revealed itself through right wing governments being infiltrated by woke ideology almost as much as left.
In the UK, there are a lot of examples of people being persecuted for their comments which might be seen as contrary to the woke agenda, for example. I recently saw a stat where far more people in the UK (3300) were arrested for what they said on social media than in Russia (400). These weren't arrests for planning violence or anything, they were just for using a word someone else didn't like, or other trivial transgressions.
In the US people often complain that they are equally badly treated whichever party is in power. Even a maverick like Trump failed to get some of his more controversial ideas implemented. If he can't get anything done which contradicts orthodox views, who can?
Here in New Zealand we have seen some instances where the new government's agenda has not progressed to the extent we might expect, and where the underlying principles of what they are trying to achieve have been sabotaged.
For example, the need to reduce bureaucracy in government ministries has been sabotaged by staff reductions in roles with some useful function, instead of in the excessive numbers of useless bureaucrats hired by the previous government. A contact in the Ministry of Education recently commented that there are more senior managers than ever, at the same time as people with a useful role are being sacrificed.
So what is the connecting principle here? It is almost as if the governments we have voted for aren't really running the place, and there are "mysterious figures" behind the scenes who are really "pulling the strings" of the puppets we think are in charge. If you don't suspect this might be the case with Biden, you really haven't been paying attention!
It seems to me that government agencies are really running many Western democracies, and therefore making them a lot less democratic. When I say "running" I don't really mean they have total control, but they do have significant influence. They are a barrier to change, which is fine in some ways because it stops a new government from coming in and doing something stupid, but it blocks changes for the better as well.
I have given a few examples above of where I think this is clearly happening, but now I want to move on to some more extreme cases, some of which might stray into the area of conspiracies, so be warned! Remember that the idea of a conspiracy has been purposely demeaned by those in power, but that is exactly what they would do if there really was a conspiracy, wouldn't they! So a conspiracy is exactly what I am claiming is happening here; don't let the way the word has been diminished fool you.
We know the FBI interferes with US elections. The Twitter Files clearly show they were trying to manipulate public opinion of Trump and therefore influence US politics on a large scale. They didn't succeed in 2016 but who can tell what effect their actions might have had in 2020? And I'm sure what has been revealed so far is just a fraction of what they have been doing in the past.
There is good reason to believe that the CIA had a certain amount to do with the overthrow of Nixon during the Watergate Scandal. I haven't looked at this one in detail, and I think Nixon was probably indulging in some suspicious activity, but without influence from the intelligence agencies I don't think things would have played out like they did.
OK, here's the mother of all conspiracies: the assassination of JFK! I've gone backwards and forwards on this one for many years, and I still don't know whether I believe the official report or not. There are many odd details to this explanation, and there are many weird coincidences which just seem too convenient. But odd events sometimes happen without a conspiracy. I'm on the fence about this, but wouldn't be surprised if there was some nefarious intelligence agency activity involved.
What about 9/11? Was that an "inside job"? No, I don't think so. This is one conspiracy I do reject. The official explanation seems fairly good in that case, and destroying such a significant landmark as the WTC buildings and the Pentagon, along with taking thousands of innocent lives, just seems like it is going too far, unnecessarily.
The big conspiracies I mentioned here might or might not be true. If they are true, my case for control from these agencies is demonstrated beyond any doubt. If they are false, the control is simply of a more subtle nature: manipulating public opinion, blocking changes using excessive bureaucracy, and other "dirty tricks". Or maybe I'm wrong and this doesn't happen at all!
So what is the solution? Well, in some countries, when a new government takes over they fire all the senior bureaucrats hired by previous governments and put their "own people" into those roles. That might seem excessive or even corrupt, but is it really? There are plenty of senior public servants in New Zealand I would like to see the end of. Let's start with the Commissioner of Police!
The law is a difficult subject to evaluate fairly. We undoubtedly need laws to control how people interact in society, yet there are so many cases where laws are unfair, unproductive, or impractical.
The expression "the law's an ass" is well known, and there are a couple of aspects of it I should mention. First, the word "ass" here refers to a donkey rather than anything else, because donkeys are reputed to be obstinate and inflexible. And second, the expression became popular after being used by English author Charles Dickens, but can be traced back further to at least the 1600s, so it isn't new.
There are several examples of problems with the law which recently caused me to want to write this post. First, the UK Post Office Scandal, which has been prominent recently thanks to a TV program about it. Second, the anti hate speech laws recently passed in Scotland which are very controversial. And third, the use of legal cases against Donald Trump, which some people claim is an attempt to sabotage his chances of becoming president again.
So let's look at these three examples...
The Post Office case originated in the 1990s when a new computer system was introduced and errors it created in payment records were blamed on the people who owned, and worked in, the small businesses which were doing postal work as contractors.
Many people were prosecuted, imprisoned, and some committed suicide as a result of the pressure. It was clear all along that the computer system had faults and was being remotely manipulated, yet the Post Office continued to blame the postmasters for the errors.
Some attempts by those accused to defend themsleves resulted in lengthy court cases and often the defence just ran out of money before they could prove anything thanks to delaying tactics and just a vastly greater amount of (taxpayer) money being available to the large organisation.
So it was sort of a case where "the best justice money can buy" applied. The winner was not the person with the best case, but who had the most money and could afford the best lawyers for the longest time.
Note that things have now been resolved in the accused people's favour, but only after 30 years and where many have died, been locked in prison, or killed themselves because of the stress.
How did the law look in this situation? Comparing it to an ass would be generous!
In Scotland new so-called anti hate speech laws have recently been passed. It is illegal, with the penalty being a potential prison sentence, to use speech to diminish the status of certain "disadvantaged" groups. For example, you cannot call a trans "woman" who is biologically a man, a man, even if you think there is a good case to say that is true.
The law allows anonymous reports and people are encouraged to report their family members (even children to report their parents) who might say the wrong thing, even in private conversations.
Anyone who thinks this is OK needs to read Nineteen Eighty Four and see where this extreme authoritarian attitude leads. Note that it is a leftist government implementing stuff which even a far right fascist one might have hesitated to enact in the past!
Harry Potter author, JK Rowling has said she will voluntarily make the same comment as what was said by anyone else who had been persecuted by this law, forcing the police to arrest her as well, and causing a huge backlash since she has the financial ability to fight it. So far this has not been necessary, because this law just doesn't work.
That new law isn't just unenforceable, it is genuinely evil. Any law where a person expresses a politically unpopular opinion in their own home, gets reported by their own children, and ends up in prison is far worse than an ass, it's an abomination!
Finally, we come to the cases being taken against Donald Trump. This one is likely to be even more controversial because Trump is a divisive figure. People who don't like him will no doubt think he deserves to be locked up, but those who support him will most likely see the charges as being politically motivated and completely bogus.
In this case the truth is probably somewhere in between. We know the US legal system interferes with elections, after the FBI tried but failed to influence the 2016 election in favour of Clinton but Trump still won. There can be little doubt that these charges are politically motivated, yet I would be surprised if there wasn't some element of truth in some of them.
The timing is "unfortunate" if you are a Trump supporter even though we are assured the fact that they all arose just at the beginning of the presidential election cycle is coincidental. That seems unlikely.
So the law is being used in this case to disrupt the democratic process of the most powerful nation on Earth. Anyone who didn't have concerns about the fairness and robustness of the legal system up until now should be genuinely alarmed at this point.
Apparently the law is being used as a political weapon. Again, calling the law an ass in this instance is really far less than the criticism it really deserves.
I don't think any less of a person if I hear they have broken a law. Many laws deserve to be broken, and the "criminal" would be better described as a hero. Of course, I have presented some of the worst cases where the law fails and there are plenty of times when it works absolutely fine, so many people who break laws are justifiably prosecuted. I just look at it on a case by case basis.
In summary, is the law an ass? Well no, it's not. Often it is an excellent tool to control society, but other times, it is far worse than that. If it was just an ass, I would be relatively happy!
Most human institutions, and most individuals, are very defined and affirmed by status. People compare themselves with others, and are aware of their relative value compared with their friends and others in their society. Additionally, people in general like to strive for the highest status they can attain.
The complicating fact is, or course, that status can be measured in many different ways, and if someone cannot compete on traditional grounds, they might be tempted to find a different way to measure themselves which more suits their strengths.
And that is fair enough. Money is often used as a measure of status, yet many people with a lot are not necessarily worthy of much respect, because their only significant talent is just the ability to accumulate money. But that shouldn't be the only way to establish status, and others might be equally valid.
The problem is that instead of just rejecting traditional measures, or dismissing the idea of status completely, many dysfunctional people like to create their own way of establishing dominance, even though they might not even be aware they are doing it.
So have you ever wondered why so many people who virtue signal a commitment to a bizarre belief are stupid, ugly, poor, or ignorant? Clearly these misfits cannot attain status in a traditional way - like becoming rich, respected through their intellect or achievements, etc - so they have to invent a new way to do the same thing.
Now, I have to be fair here and say that there is no objective way to say which ways of measuring an individual's value are most valid, so maybe these alternatives are just as valid as any other, but no, we have established ways because they have proved valuable over time, and new ways are unlikely to be as good.
So all of that is a bit abstract, so let me give some examples of where traditional hierarchies have been overturned or even reversed - or maybe I should say when this has been attempted.
Communism was allegedly a way to eliminate status completely. All people were to have the same value and receive the same rewards. But it didn't work, of course, because the leaders took the majority of power, status, and material wealth. It failed in its aim, and arguably created a culture even more based on status than before.
But the fantasy of communism is egalitarianism and that might explain why so many people who are not doing well in our traditional Western societies, where status is based on merit as measured by financial and intellectual success, look to communist styled philosophies such as Marxism and postmodernism as an alternative.
So if you cannot be a great artist or accumulate enough money to own great art, why not try to destroy existing art under the pretence of protesting lack of action on climate change? That will give you status amongst the other misfits with similar beliefs.
And if you are hideously obese, why not try to attract attention by demanding your "rights" to two seats for the price of one when you fly? No doubt, other people with similar lack of self-control (in most cases) will admire your courageous stand against oppression, right?
And if you feel like you can't make any great contribution in traditional ways, and that you are near the bottom in social status, why not try to flip the narrative by making those at the bottom the most worthy? So you could pretend the religious, racial, and social minorities who aren't doing well are truly deserving of more, without making any effort on their own behalf, and that would make you look better too.
And people without jobs and who don't drive might like to hold up traffic in order to virtue signal whatever nonsensical belief they have, whether it is supporting Palestinian terrorists, or pretending their actions might stop climate change, or to support their sick religion. If you don't have a job or a car, why not make life as hard as possible for those that do, isn't that a good way to gain equity?
I do have to admit that I am being a bit unkind here. There are people who protest political and social issues who are actually quite functional in a traditional sense. But a lot aren't. Next time you see these people with their insane demands ask yourself: are they really just compensating for their own deficiencies, whether that is intellect, or knowledge, or experience, or physical fitness, or their appearance, or talent, or one of many other factors.
When you have no status, you can pretend you don't care, you can try to destroy existing status mechanisms, or you can demand a new world where you matter. But in the end, it is all about status.
I recently visited a friend/client who is very active in the centre-left Labour Party here in New Zealand. While I was there primarily to look at a few issues with her computer, we did get into a political discussion, as almost always happens, and while it didn't turn nasty, I think we could safely say we didn't agree on everything!
But we did agree on quite a lot. I used to regularly vote for Labour, until two things happened. First, they went a bit too far left socially for me, in fact they went woke. And second, their coalition partners, the Greens and the Maori Party, are insane. These two parties genuinely are filled with extreme, ideologically driven nutters.
I really think most of the members of those two parties are on the edge of insanity. They are hysterical, irrational, and inflexible. I'm not saying that those faults don't also exist in other parties, especially their two equivalents on the right, Act and New Zealand First, but I think those two are far more pragmatic and moderate.
One of the policies of the new government is tax cuts, and the left are attacking them on that front. To be fair, the policies have not been well thought out and the costings are highly suspect, but I think the opposition to them is more a matter of ideology than practicality.
My opponent looked horrified when I told her I voted for Act (libertarian, center-right) at the last election. She described that party's leader as a "horrible lying fanatic" or something similar, but when challenged to say why, she had no answer. It was as if I should just accept that appraisal without question. When I criticised the leadership of the Green and Maori parties I gave reasons, such as Marama Davidson's completely false claim that it is "white cis men who cause violence in the world" (see my blog post "Just Admit You're Wrong" from 2023-04-04).
I probably don't need to say it, but this woman also sees herself as a proud feminist. Earlier in the debate I had said there is a tendency for women to make judgements based on emotions, where men tend to be more (superficially, at least) rational.
Needless to say she was horrified by this, although I emphasised that this is just a general trend, and there are plenty of exceptions, and that emotion is an important part of human existence. But her reaction to the Act leader was an excellent example of this phenomenon, I think.
Then I told her my "Jacinda Ardern" story, which I will briefly mention here. I get emails from all the major parties, and when Labour were in significant political difficulties before the 2017 election, they asked in a newsletter for ideas about what they could do better. I recommended making Ardern party leader, and I actually voted Labour that year.
In my defence, at that point she showed some promising political skills and her tyrannical tendencies hadn't become apparent. Note that I haven't voted for Labour since. I learned from my mistakes!
But when I asked this person if there was anything Labour could do that would convince her to vote for another party she had nothing. It seemed as though she would literally vote for Labour no matter what their policies were. She might have said at that point that Labour would always represent her wishes, but what about the 1984 Labour government which went completely neoliberal, by selling off government owned assets, privatising public instituions, and changing the tax system? I know without doubt that she would not have approved of that. Unfortunately I didn't think to ask her who she voted for in 1984, and whether she regretted it.
People who always vote for one party, whatever the current situation the country is in, or no matter what policies that party is offering, are the worst. Do they really deserve a vote at all? I mean, that is not the way democracy is supposed to work. Any party which is guaranteed your vote really doesn't have to work too hard on your behalf, does it?
By the way, the question above about who deserves a vote is rhetorical. I think we need to give everyone a vote, above a certain age (18, I say), no matter how poorly we might view their political opinions. If they vote in a stupid way, that is their right, but I don't have to like it!
I often get into quite heated debates, especially on X (previously known as Twitter), involving controversial topics such as indigenous rights, feminism, LGBTQIA+ rights, leftist political agendas, and environmentalism (including climate change).
My opponents tend to accuse me of being racists because they say I am anti-Maori, or misogynistic because I disagree with some women's rights claims, or transphobic because I am seen as anti-LGBT, or a rabid far right crazy because I object to some of the more extreme ideas on the left, or being a climate denier because I disagree with many proposed climate actions.
Sounds like I am a truly terrible person, doesn't it? Well, if any, or all, of that was true maybe I would be. But that's not the way I see it.
Here's the thing: I'm not anti any of those groups in general. What I am against is the extremists and activists in those groups, not the people they allegedly (but not in reality) represent.
So I think many of the Maori elites who have accumulated a lot of wealth out of the grievance industry are corrupt, and I think the crazy extremists, such as most of the members of the Maori and Green Parties, who claim to be representing Maori rights, are just plain wrong (they're probably corrupt too, but that's not my main claim).
I have no problem with Maori people in general, and I suspect (although I know of no credible stats on this) that the average Maori person does not have the same views as the activists do. More Maori voted for the National Party (conservative) than the Maori Party (activist) at the 2023 election, which I think indicates a lack of support for their more extreme policies.
And a similar argument applies to those other groups. There have been many reports and news items showing that most women do not support a lot of the modern feminist agenda. And in the same way, many people from the LGBT community are really embarrassed by how they are supposedly represented by activists in that area.
I have no problems with many ideas the traditional left of politics hold; in fact, I agree with many of them. But the radical woke social agenda which has particularly infected the left of politics (although also the right to some extent) makes it impossible for me to vote left (and I used to). So having a balanced mix of policies, some from the left and some from the right, is a natural preference for me, but the more radical elements stop that from being practical.
Finally, I think climate change is real and I think there is good evidence that it is primarily caused by human activity. If there were sensible, rational actions we could take that would make a genuine difference I would support them. But the crazy hysteria we hear from activists like Greta Thunberg and the Green Party is where I start pushing back.
Shutting down power plants and other facilities which use fossil fuels while China constantly opens new ones and uses more coal than the rest of the world combined is insane. We can't make a difference so why not spend the money we were going to use for carbon emmission reduction on protection from the effects of a more extreme climate, which is going to happen whatever we do?
So my enemies are not Maori, or women, or trans people, or the left, or climate scientists. My real enemies are the people who take those issues, and push them to irrational extremes, either because of pure ignorance, hysteria, virtue signalling, or for the financial benefits they might be able to accumulate from these actions.
I have a private client who I visit occasionally and who is about as left as you can be. One day we were discussing issues like this and I said I thought feminists had become irrational. She said "I'm a feminist" and I sort of had to back down, because it isn't feminism in general I object to - I believe in equality for women for example - but the more insane extremes of it we see occasionally.
So I do need to be a bit more careful about my choice of words. I'm not going to say "the damn Maoris are just a blight on society" for example. Instead I will say Maori activists are. There's a big difference, even to the extent that many pro-Maori activists aren't even Maori themselves. That fact shows that it is the idea I reject, not the person.
According to Thomas Sowell (a person I have a quite high opinion of) social engineering is the "art of replacing what works with what sounds good". Short, pithy quotes like that sound good but do they work? (see what I did there?)
I think there is some truth in the quote. The major problem we have with many current political situations is the replacement of solid, rational, objective arguments with emotional, feel good, subjective opinions.
I do have to concede here that presenting the two extremes like that is misleading, because every political decision and action involves some elements from both of those extremes. These is always some emotion mixed with the rationality, and there is always some personal opinion or subjectivity included with the objective facts. But it is the degree to which the emotional stuff occurs which is the problem.
So let's look at some examples where emotion and a wish for something to be true because it just "feels better" have replaced what is actually true (or at least, what we can reasonably say is close to true, to the extent we can say anything is).
First, that hot topic in recent years: trans. The emotional left insist a man who wants to live as a woman, or who identifies as a woman, is actually a woman, and should be able to participate in society just like any other woman. Of course, the same applies to women who identify as men, but that doesn't have the same degree of problematic consequences.
So, as a matter of fact, these people are not women. In genuine cases, I am perfectly happy to treat them as women in almost any situation. In fact, I have been recently helping a "trans woman" with computer issues recently, and I am fairly confident she wouldn't have any complaints about how I acted.
But let's not allow this to go too far. Here are situations where I would draw the line: a person who is using their alleged trans status for political ends, in other words, they are not genuine; a situation where biological women might be disadvantaged, like in sport; a situation which results in significant danger or discomfort to biological women, like trans people using women's change rooms, etc.
Second, immigration. I think immigration itself is a perfectly reasonable thing, and having people enter a country gives many benefits, such as new ideas and cultures, specialised jobs being filled by immigrants where there are shortages, and just helping people who genuinely want to move to a new country with good intentions.
But allowing massive numbers of people with no useful skills, little social or cultural competence, or even bad intentions over our borders will not end well, even if the justification sounds kind and generous, like helping people from countries hit by war, conflict, famine, etc.
For example, I don't want anyone who wants to apply their religious laws into our country, or someone who might not assimilate, or someone with no skills who will not be able to work. And I'm not just picking on one class of immigrant, although there is one type which is particularly problematic right now.
Third, racism, sexism, and other bias. When a "minority" or "disadvantaged" group is not doing as well in society as we might expect, it is "nice" to blame society rather than the person. After all, they're already disadvantaged (allegedly), so why would we want to blame the victim?
Again, this sounds good but doesn't really help society in reality. There are societal mechanisms which work for and against various groups, but I think the evidence indicates these aren't particularly significant in determining different outcomes for different groups.
It's true that the average wage (in the US, because that's where I have the stats for) is much lower for black people than white, but it is much higher for Asians. In the past, both black people and Asians have had discriminatory policies work against them, yet today one fails while the other thrives. Why? Maybe the culture of those two groups plays a significant part in this. Maybe some people have been taught that they are victims so much that they have come to believe it.
There are many other areas where emotion overcomes logic, but I think you get the point. You might think that being "kind" (as our previous tyrannical leader used to say) is always a good thing, but it isn't. Being kind to one group often means being unkind to another. Being kind often involves wasting a lot of money. Being kind often creates an expectation of generosity which is counterproductive in the end.
So our "national day", Waitangi Day, has come and gone again, so now might be a good time to think about where we are as a nation. The answer is nowhere good. Thank you, that is the end of the blog post. Well, it isn't really...
I suspect to most New Zealanders, Waitangi Day is just a day off work. To me it was that plus a time to argue about the state of the country with people on-line! So yes, arguing is the primary activity which happens on this day now.
My friends and acquaintances might not be a representative sample, but I get the impression that no one really cares much about this day. It's a day off work, and any further significance is either ignored or actively avoided. For example, under no circumstances should you listen to RNZ or watch TVNZ on this day, unless you want to get propagandised with the most absurd nonsense imaginable.
The problem is that a national day should be about celebrating a nation, and recognising how the people of that nation are united towards a common goal. But not here, because the day reminds us how deeply divided we really are.
I'm not suggesting Maori and other ethnicities are divided; what I am saying is that Maori activists and their non-Maori allies are divided against the rest. It is difficult to get numbers on what percentage of the population these two groups might represent, but I suspect the majority are in the "don't care" camp, rather than either of those two groups.
The Maori activists have always liked to use the day to whine and moan about their alleged plight and to demand greater privileges and power which they don't deserve, but this year it was more intense than usual because of the Act Party's Treaty Principles Bill.
The "Treaty" here refers to the Treaty of Waitangi, a document signed by the British and some Maori tribes in 1840. One problem is that it wasn't really a single document because there was an English version and a version translated into Maori, which has resulted in some confusion because the translation of some (usually more abstract) English words into Maori is imprecise.
The Treaty is often claimed to be the founding document of the country, but this claim is open to some suspicion, since it was really just designed to make Maori British citizens so they could be protected by law.
So the Treaty is open to considerable interpretation, but even that isn't the real problem, because in the last few decades a new activity has arisen involving creating "Treaty Principles". These are basically opinions on what new principles might arise from the "spirit" of the Treaty even when they are not specifically mentioned.
And that's the biggest problem: these are entirely politically driven ideas which have come from activists in places like the Waitangi Tribunal and have been often accepted by woke governments, especially on the left, who usually rely on getting Maori votes, although the right is certainly not innocent either.
Naturally the mainstream media have been up to their usual tricks of deliberately misrepresenting the intent of the Bill either by repeating false information or allowing pro-Maori activists to say it, unchallenged.
What the Act Party want to do is to open a discussion on what the principles of the Treaty should be. They don't want to re-word or eliminate the Treaty itself, although there is actually a pretty good case to do that. In my opinion there should be no principles. If we are going to acknowledge the Treaty at all, let's accept what it says, not what some people think it should have said, or what might exist in the imagination of the activists.
In my experience, people who don't want to engage in debate often have a very weak case and know they would probably lose. So when I see such strong opposition to this, I assume that might be the reason.
The previous government basically just jumped to attention whenever Maori demanded anything (OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but there is some truth there) and now that has stopped they are not happy. I mean, fair enough, if I was getting a lot of handouts and special privileges and that might end, I might try to eliminate the threat too. But we should recognise it for what it is: a determination to maintain self-centered, selfish privileges.
The philosophy behind Act's proposed changes is to make all New Zealanders equal, instead of allowing race-based privileges. Ironically this, which is the exact opposite of racism, is labelled racist. We shouldn't be gaslit by nonsense like that; we need to become a country where everyone is treated the same. The activists won't like that, but it's time it happened anyway.
We should rescue our national day, and our nation.
Is there a fundamental difference between people on the right and those on the left? Well, there can't be anything too deep and immutable because so many people change their attitude over time. For example, I used to be fairly extreme to the left, and now identify more with the moderate libertarian right, and that is a common story: people become more right wing as they get older.
Of course, there are numerous issues with this simplistic analysis. For a start, many on the right (me included) see some elements of left politics as quite reasonable and some elements of the right as being problematic. Also, a simple left/right split is misleading since there are at least two axes involved with political opinion, usually summarised as social and economic.
But despite these misgivings, I am still going to make some sweeping judgements on the subject so prepare yourself; just remember that I am very aware of the deficiencies in my own argument.
One element of the difference became apparent in a recent on-line discussion. It was about whether period products should be made available free to girls in schools and funded by the state (AKA the taxpayer, AKA you and me). A leftist would most likely say that is the correct course, without really thinking about the underlying philosophical issues too much; and a person on the right might say it is wrong, again with little consideration of the subtleties inherent in the question.
So who is right? Well, neither is, because it depends on your underlying philosophy of collectivism versus individualism. I'm sure my readers know by now that I am very much an individualist, but I don't think there is necessarily any objective truth in that view, it is just my preference.
So I would say that these subsidised products are nothing to do with me, and I don't know why I (as a taxpayer) should pay for them. But a case could be made to say that we are all humans and we should be helping each other, because that is how a successful culture works.
A common argument here is that females are disadvantaged because they face the extra cost of buying these products. But how about males? They tend to be bigger and more active, and need more food. Which is the bigger financial burden? Why help one and not the other? Well, we all know thew answer to that, don't we.
As always, the truth lies between the extremes, and purely collectivist cultures would be as bad, or worse, than purely individual ones, although neither of those pure forms can ever really exist. So the difference is just in the default view. I would say the starting point is individualism, but we should consider moving away from that view when it is appropriate, where more left oriented people might have the opposite view.
I think it is important for the each side to understand the other's perspective. I don't think most people on the left or the right are evil, they just have different ways to get to the same result: the best life for everyone. Those on the right genuinely believe that individual freedom and responsibility, with minimum government interference, is the best approach. People on the left think we all should be helping each other, often through government run programs.
Some people need help because they have got into a bad situation primarily through bad luck or other situations beyond their control. Others need help because they are lazy and entitled. Most government programs help the second group as much as the first, and people quite rightly get upset about it. But we should also get upset if the first group isn't helped.
It's complicated, isn't it? I think as long as we keep away from the extremes on either side, we aren't doing too badly. Until recently, many on the left tended to be too extreme (in my estimation) but the moderate left is OK, although I would still vote more in the direction of moderate libertarian myself. I could possibly force myself to vote Labour, but never the Green or Maori Party. Despite my message of understanding on this post, I really do see them as loony lefties!
Two of my favourite memes relating to modern society are a picture of George Orwell, author of the dystopian novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four", with a speech bubble saying "Did I call it, or what?", and a notice in a library stating that "Nineteen Eighty-Four has been moved to the Current Affairs section".
Obviously, these are references to how many of the "dirty tricks" used by the totalitarian government in the novel are also what are being used by many "progressive" governments and activists around the world today. By the way, I used quotes around the world progressive above, because reversion to pseudo-religiosity, and rejection of many of the greatest strengths of society is the exact opposite of progressive, and that is really my point in this post.
According to Wikipedia: "Nineteen Eighty-Four centres on the consequences of totalitarianism, mass surveillance, and repressive regimentation of persons and behaviours within society. Orwell, himself a democratic socialist, modelled the authoritarian government in the novel after Stalinist Russia. More broadly, the novel examines the role of truth and facts within politics and the ways in which they are manipulated."
So the form of totalitarianism in the novel is what is produced from the extreme left (Soviet Russia). I have no doubt that the extreme right might be capable of similar outrages, but it is primarily the left Orwell was concerned with, and which is causing problems at this juncture.
The novel mentioned many tools used to keep the population under control, but maybe the most important one was the manipulation of language. Interestingly, this is a major factor in postmodernism and neo-Marxism as well, and that is the underlying philosophy of many of the groups causing the biggest problems in modern society.
In the book, the society is being introduced to a new language, "Newspeak", which was used as a tool by the state to limit free thought and maintain their control.
Famously, many of the institutions in the novel have the opposite function to what their name might suggest. For example, the Ministry of Truth (minitrue) dealt with propaganda, and the alteration of history, culture and entertainment; the Ministry of Love was the secret police, which engaged interrogation and torture; and the Ministry of Peace was in charge of war.
So let's have a look at some of the words certain groups in modern society have modified to try to control the political narrative today...
Racist. This is generally used as a term for someone who isn't a racist, because they want everyone to be treated the same, irrespective of their race or ethnicity. For example, a person who thinks everyone should have the same chance to be elected into positions of power, or who thinks everyone should have access to education, based on merit instead of race, will often be called a racist.
In addition, racism has been modified to the point where some racial groups are incapable of racism whatever they do, and others are automatically racist no matter what they say or do. I'm not making this up, this is actually an important part of Critical Race Theory.
Kind. This is a popular word made famous by our very own Jacinda Ardern. It may very well be that she genuinely though that she was doing the best thing for everyone, but many disagreed. A genuinely kind person would listen to criticism and maybe change their views as a result. Ardern didn't.
Nazi. A Nazi is a person, usually on the right of politics, who a leftist disagrees with. Maybe the most absurd example is Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jew, who is extremely unlikely to share many of his ideals with Nazis, I would have thought.
Carpet bombing, Apartheid, and genocide. These are three claims made against Israel in the current conflict in Gaza. Anyone who knows anything about the military knows what carpet bombing really is. Here's a hint: it's not what Israel is doing. And Apartheid was a system implemented in South Africa which blocked many rights for black people. In Israel, Palestinians had full rights to work, were represented in their government, and had no major restrictions at all. On the other hand, Israelis couldn't live in Gaza after 2006. And genocide does not involve a hazardous ground war intended to target military personnel and facilities. Firing rockets haphazardly into a neighbouring country and launching an attack targeting civilians, like Hamas has done, sounds more like genocide to me!
I could go on with many more examples, but I'm trying to keep my new blog posts short, so I will leave it there. But remember to watch out for Newspeak, especially on the mainstream media. You might start seeing it everywhere. Yes, Orwell sure did call it. And if you haven't read Nineteen Eighty-Four yet, go get it; look in the current affairs section of the library!
I visited a "highly intelligent" expert's office recently (I can't say who or where this was), and noticed a pile of books about the "evils of colonisation" littering their desk. I generally just let this stuff go and act professionally, instead of getting into intense political discussions, but for some reason the subject of colonialism came up (maybe they saw me examining the books, I can't remember).
I do have a somewhat nuanced opinion on this subject, although I do tend to be somewhat flippantly dismissive of ideas like decolonisation, so I discussed it in fairly moderate terms, although what I was thinking was a bit more extreme. So today I might briefly recount what I remember saying, along with what I might have been (and was) thinking...
I commented that the books only seemed to cover one aspect of colonisation, that is the negative consequences on the indigenous culture which was colonised, and I wondered whether that meant they could provide a biased perspective.
What I was really thinking was something like this though: yeah, you're a delusional, left wing, woke muppet, who has already decided what you want the answer to be before you even start reading about the subject.
I then commented that the native culture was repressed by the colonisers for sure, but at the same time they gained a lot as well, such as these: technology; medicine, which leads to a much longer life expectancy; a proper democratic political system, although women only got the vote a bit later; and various other social conventions such as the elimination of cannibalism, inter-tribal warfare, and slavery.
I concede, some land was unfairly confiscated; some native traditions, such as the language, were repressed; and there was an element of racism present too, which we should acknowledge as problematic, but the good could easily be seen as outweighing the bad, if the situation is examined fairly.
So what was I thinking in this case? Well, that Maori (because that was the indigenous culture under discussion) in some ways were damn lucky to have been colonised, because until then they were almost constantly at war with each other, indulged in cannibalism, and had eliminated some of their major food sources (such as the moa).
So they had, contrary to politically correct opinion, destroyed significant parts of the environment. In fact, in New Zealand, more species have been destroyed by Maori (mostly after they introduced the Pacific rat) than by European settlers. And more land was cleared of native bush prior to colonisation than after.
Finally, we discussed where Maori might be if New Zealand had not been colonised by the British. First, I said that the British were the "best of a bad bunch" and that many other colonial powers would have been far worse. Of course, that isn't a good defence for colonisation in general, but it is a point worth considering.
Also, where would the indigenous people have been without all those benefits that colonisation brought them? The person I was debating said maybe Maori would have advanced to the point where they gained all those benefits by themselves, and I (remember I was trying to be conciliatory here) said that was theoretically possible.
But, of course, what I was thinking was "yeah, right". Maori literally lived in the stone age. They had no written language, and in many ways were at the same point as "Western civilisation" was about 3000 years ago. It seems far more likely they would be extinct than living in a peaceful democracy, with equal rights for all, and driving around in their cars with their smartphones.
Was I being a white supremacist? Was I being derogatory about native societies? Was I being a racist? Well, according to many people's definitions, yes I was, but who cares? I'm fairly confident everything I was thinking was true, and I do think Western culture is superior to traditional Maori culture, and every other culture in the world for that matter.
I don't despise Maori, although I do despise a lot of Maori activists, especially the Maori Party. I think Maori did suffer some disadvantages from being colonised, but overall I think being colonised by the British was the best thing that ever happened to them. No doubt the "highly intellectual thinker" I was debating with would disagree and would recommend decolonisation (whatever than is, exactly). Decolonise Aotearoa? Yeah, right!
In the past I have been very suspicious of anyone extolling the virtues of "the market". I mean, it was always seen as a warning sign of a fairly extreme ideology, especially in terms of economics, but extended to other areas of life as well. I still think there are people who promote market driven approaches who are very one dimensional, and might be either motivated by greed or doctrinal belief to "spread the word", but on the other hand, I do kind of get it now, too.
Market driven systems, just like those based on other concepts, have their advantages and disadvantages, of course, and a pure market approach is arguably not much better than any other pure approach, but I think the automatic rejection of them is misguided.
I should, at this point, briefly discuss what sort of market approach I mean. In the bigger picture, I see these as systems which respond to pressures from the end users. So in a market for smart-phones for example, it might be possible for one manufacturer to demand a premium price because that's what purchasers see as appropriate. Whether the extra cost is worth it or not is debatable, but in a market approach whatever works is justified.
Of course, I am talking about Apple in general here. All of their products are, superficially at least, more expensive than most of their competitors, but they still succeed despite that (market capitalisation over $3 trillion). Customers see value and respond by being prepared to pay the extra. Is the extra cost justified by objective criteria? Who knows, but it doesn't really matter because it works.
The broader concept of markets works outside of product sales too. We now have a situation where many mainstream media outlets are massively less popular than alternative sources, like podcasts, YouTube videos, discussion sites, and social media. In past posts I have discussed how Joe Rogan's podcast has a far greater audience than CNN, and in another recent podcast called "Triggernometry" I heard how that has far more listeners than a mainstream magazine which chose to criticise it.
The internet has expanded the mechanisms available for distribution of information, and in that new market environment the consumers have exercised their freedom of choice to reject legacy media, mostly because it has taken the woke path of identity politics.
So people who see markets as being abstract and faceless mechanisms controlled by a few elite couldn't be more wrong. What they are really thinking about there are the alternatives. Markets are the result of the accumulation of many individual choices. The option is to have central control (for example of pricing, availability of information, etc) which comes from a single source, such as a government, and who wants that?
Well, to be fair, there are places where some degree of central control is necessary, because that famous concept from economics, externalities, has an effect, and markets also only work "properly" in an environment where there is no monopolistic opportunity to warp the natural preferences of the market participants.
So people who say "let the market decide" are making a very valid point, but they do need to be aware of those two factors. Markets only work well when they are set up using a fair set on constraints, and when extra factors which might not normally be part of the system are factored in.
There is one other point I should make here too. That is that to get a rational outcome from a market it is usually assumed that the participants themselves are rational. I think it is generally accepted now that most people do not act rationally and in their own objective best interests. But in fact, this might not be as important a factor as might be first assumed, because the process often known as "the wisdom of crowds" can give good results even when individual knowledge or decision making is faulty.
Also, even if the market makes the "wrong" decision, it is still a decision based on a common view, and should be respected based on that. Looking at it this way, democracy is a market mechanism, because trends percolate up from the masses instead of being imposed from above.
So I say the government should do as little as possible beyond creating an environment where market actors can provide what is demanded. It is a debatable point whether they should go beyond that and act in cases where game theory demonstrates a likelihood of adverse outcomes such as those which arise from "tragedy of the commons" situations.
I guess we could say that government actions are partly market driven forces too in democracies, because the "market" (voters) decide which governments are successful, but that is far from an authentic example.
So I could conclude by saying that trusting the market is like trusting the majority view, or trusting democracies, at least in situations where markets are operating efficiently and fairly. I know that markets have their problems, but the alternatives are much worse.
According to the United States Declaration of Independence: "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."
It's a commonly quoted phrases and one which is widely accepted as a form of political rhetoric to support many different (often contradictory) ideologies. But compare it to this one from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: "Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free."
Of course the real problem is that the words can be interpreted in several different ways, and this is almost always the case with these sorts of political phrases. There's a very good reason why lawyers try to make laws more specific by using the ponderous language they do, and there's a good reason why programmers use programming languages instead of English to program computers. In both cases it is because natural languages are non-specific.
Write some code in a programming language and you will get the same, correct result 100% of the time (if there are any errors it is your fault), but write something in English and there are numerous possible answers, all of which could be seen as correct.
So are we all created equal or not? Well, the Declaration of Independence includes a religious claim, that there is a creator, which might affect the outcome, but let's move beyond that.
The claim has its origins in earlier philosophical and theological works and has alternated at different times between the two major ways it could be interpreted: first, that everyone is actually the same, having the same abilities and attributes; and second, that while everyone is different, including regarding their inherent abilities, we should treat them all the same.
It should be completely clear to everyone that the first interpretation cannot be supported in any reasonable way. People are born with different strengths and weaknesses: some have great intelligence, others agility or strength, some have excellent health, others are born with congenital abnormalities, some are just average at everything, others are above average at several things, and some below.
Most human characteristics exist in a roughly normal distribution and the average person is... average. Additionally, it is a fact that many people have trouble accepting that about half of all humans are below average in whatever characteristic you might be considering.
None of this can be reasonably disputed, but in recent times the more woke members of society have effectively decided that people really are equal, and that any apparent differences are due to social factors (primarily repression from the dominant societal groups) which must be corrected. From this we get the concept of equity.
Equity is a way of overcoming the natural disparities which exist by artificially enhancing the position of "repressed" members of society. In many ways this sounds like a great idea: surely everyone being the same is a great goal, but it doesn't really work that way, because there are numerous unintended consequences, just like there always are when politicians dabble in social engineering.
When one group is given an advantage, even if the intention for equity is a good one, there are inevitable disadvantages to other groups and to society as a whole.
Let's look at the latest trendy example, because these political ideologies are really nothing better than mindless fads, and tend to come and go. The current example of trans politics. Yeah, this discussion suddenly sounds dangerous, doesn't it? Why is that? It's because this has become like a religion, and religions never like having their beliefs questioned (other examples: feminism, COVID politics, climate change).
In the past, women were the group who were seen as repressed and in need of the help from our valorous social justice warriors, but as I said above, that fad has been replaced with another one, and now women are being disadvantaged because men who identify as women are being given the good old equity treatment. And that's fine, except for one thing: by doing that, the more fundamental rights of women are being ignored. This is a classic case of what I mean by the unintended consequences of equity, although you do have to wonder how unintended they really are in this case.
And here's another example: affirmative action. This has been a controversial practice for many years, and only recently has there been some indication that the tide is turning against it. The most obvious example has been in US universities where "disadvantaged" groups are given preferential entry.
As a result of this people enter prestigious university programs based on things other than merit. Here are the differences in average IQ (compared with white Americans) of different racial groups for medical students in the US: Asian +4, White 0, Hispanic -17, Black -18. So if you see a black doctor, there's a good chance he or she will be considerably less intelligent than an Asian doctor. I know intelligence is't everything, but could you blame someone for being hesitant to see a black doctor?
So there might be bias against the groups who were supposed to be helped by this intervention, and that bias is not entirely without merit (although, I must repeat that IQ isn't everything, especially in medicine, where the average is a rather pathetic 111).
You might say that everyone loses with equity. Immediately or superficially this might not be apparent, but long-term it is inevitable - at least when looking at the big picture, because I assume some individuals are advantaged by receiving unearned advantages. And remember that any group receiving the benefits today might be on the other side tomorrow, as women have recently found out.
Equality, in the usual sense, means treating everyone the same even when it is obvious they have different abilities. This means that some groups will be less well represented in some parts of society. For example, base don the stats above, there will be less black doctors in the US. But as long as black people have equal opportunity, I don't see that as bad. After all, they are over-represented in some very well paid jobs, like professional basketball, and I don't see anyone demanding equity for Asians there!
It seems to be that Solzhenitsyn was right: equity (I will use this word to fit the modern context, instead of equality) isn't the great thing many assume it is. You can have equity or you can have freedom, and even if you have equity you will soon find it isn't what you really wanted. We are not all created equal, and even if we should be treated as if we were, equity achieves the exact opposite of this.
Well, I've got to say at this point that, for a change, I am fairly happy with the outcome of several recent events. Most obviously is the outcome of the New Zealand general election, but there is also the result of the Voice referendum in Australia, and the epic victory of the All Blacks against Ireland in France.
So with this feeling of schadenfreude foremost I should try to justify these thoughts and maybe look at them in a bigger context (apart from the rugby: that's just a game).
The NZ Herald had a headline this morning, which read: "Election 2023: Political bloodbath and the end of the Jacinda Ardern era - World reacts to National Party's victory in New Zealand" Other comments include phrases like "the end of Ardernism". So while Ardern wasn't the prime minister at the time of this defeat, clearly many people see her as the cause.
And I would be one of them. To paraphrase Lincoln: "she fooled most of the people for some of the time, but eventually most of us caught on to her games". But even now many people cannot comprehend how anyone could not admire her. I was recently discussing this with a Labour supporter, and I said it was Ardern's fault that Labour was failing. The other peson assumed I meant that it was because she had left, and not that if she had stayed Labour would still be wildly popular. They just don't get it.
I see this more of a rejection of the woke political agenda than of Labour itself. I mean, they hadn't really achieved much, but they weren't a complete disaster either. Based on that, they hardly deserved to have the number of seats they won at the last election halved in just 3 years. That takes more than incompetence, especially when the main opposition party is so uninspiring. That takes a deeper, philosophical objection.
It is affecting many left-leaning political parties around the world. Instead of being primarily there to help the working class, they are more interested in identity politics. Leftist governments are supported by (so-called) well educated elites now, rather than workers. If Labour had spent as much time worrying about the lower and middle classes, and less time being concerned with equity, diversity, and gender and race-based politics, then maybe they would have won.
One event told me as much about the new Labour, with Hipkins in charge, than many other well-publicised events. It was when Sean Plunket asked him "what is a woman" and he mumbled a load of incoherent nonsense instead of giving an answer. To me, this showed that despite his friendly exterior, he was still dedicated to that ideology of woke politics beneath the surface.
By the way, if you never saw the interview where this interaction took place, I'm not surprised, because the mainstream media would have hidden it. I only saw it because I follow various alternative sources as well as the mainstream.
I have mentioned in the past that I see myself partly as a libertarian and was going to vote Act, which I did. That party maybe didn't do as well as they could have, due to some errors in strategy over the past few weeks, and it now looks like New Zealand First might also become part of the government coalition. I'm pretty happy with that, because the ideas that party have I think will help steer us away from the path we have taken during the Ardern era.
The next three years will tell us whether this is going to work, but I think at least it's a change of course which we needed. I don't expect miracles, but I do expect that some of the irrational, divisive nonsense we might have got with the left instead might be avoided. I could probably cope with Labour in charge, but having the Greens and the Maori Party involved in a coalition: well, that's not a happy prospect.
At the same time as our general election, Australia held a referendum called "the Voice" which was intended to modify their constitution to set up a special aboriginal group intended to advise the government on relevant issues.
The referendum question was "A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?" was so non-specific that few people should have felt comfortable voting "yes".
So this is clearly another example of woke-ism pushing against established democratic norms. It has been said that there would be no compulsion to take any of the recommendations of this group seriously, but it has also been said that anyone who ignored them would do so at their peril.
Race-based politics is one area here in New Zealand where division and conflict has arisen, so I was pleased to see the Australian people voted "no" to this proposal. I freely admit that the history of aboriginals in Australia is a very sad one, but handing out special privileges, based on race, is not the best answer.
I'm sure that some people voted against this because they were racist, and I'm also sure that many voted against it because they wanted to protect democracy. But the same old crowd came out in favour of it: university academics, extremely woke TV hosts, and political activists. I think it is time these groups were taken a bit less seriously.
Finally, the All Blacks beat the world's number one rugby team, Ireland, by 24 to 28. I don't really pay a lot of attention to sport, except sometimes cricket, but it's always good to see our national teams do well, especially when they were the underdogs for a change. And yes, I know, that supporting a national sport team could be seen as an example of the tribalism I sometimes rail against, but no one's perfect!
So yes, it was a good day, news-wise. I don't think everything in the world will suddenly be better, but at least there's some cause for optimism now. At least the last traces of Ardernism are consigned to the political rubbish heap: it's the end of an era.
I'm pretty damn sick of the "elites" of this world preaching to us, and telling us how we should live our lives, while they do the exact opposite of what they are telling us to, and creating a story they want us to believe which is really just based on fantasy.
This is evident in many areas of political activism, but maybe mostly so with climate change. Before I go any further, I need to say (yet again) that I don't deny climate change is happening and that we need to react to it. All I am saying is that the current types of reaction are ineffective and wasteful.
This is my second recent post on this subject, but I think that is justified because it is a prominent political issue, and is often part of political debates here in New Zealand leading up to the elections. For example, I noticed several people encouraging people to "vote for climate action" (whatever that means) around town today.
Let's start by looking at the most repulsive and annoying elite of recent times, at least to me: our own Jacinda Ardern.
In mid 2021 RNZ made the following statement about her: "This week Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said acting on climate change is life and death, and not a choice, but an imperative."
There are several problems with this. First, it's not true. It's no more a matter of life and death than many other potential political issues. And it is a choice; one which many countries do not seem to be particularly serious about acting on. Finally, at that time, thanks in part to the PM's decisions, New Zealand burned more coal in three months than all of 2016 and 2017 put together (the time prior to her reign as PM). This was also reported by RNZ, a notoriously left oriented source and therefore one likely to be generous to Ardern.
So really, you can't take a thing she says seriously. And it's best not to even get me started on the repulsive nonsense she's been spouting since she ran away from the mess she had made as PM here.
Another point of extreme hypocrisy, often commented on, is the way would leaders fly in private jets - the worst possible way to travel based on CO2 generated per person - to conferences to discuss climate change. For example, 118 private jets took the "leaders" (AKA worthless parasites) to the COP26 Climate Summit, producing over 1,000 tons of CO2.
I know that's a small amount compared to the total for the world per year, but surely these people can see that telling everyone else to sacrifice on their own travel plans while doing the exact opposite themselves, makes it hard to take them seriously.
And what about our old friend Greta Thunberg? Well, remember that stunt she pulled by sailing to the US in a carbon neutral yacht of some sort? Well, apparently for her to return home required the captain of the yacht to be flown to her location to retrive her. And that was the second time that had happened, except the previous time a crew had to be flown for the same reason. So, like many climate activists, she is all about appearances, and her activities have very little to do with reality.
And it's not just individuals either. The countries who are often criticised for not doing their part are often the ones making the biggest cuts, while others which seem to be immune to criticism, are producing more carbon than ever.
For example, in the years 1990 to 2020, China's coal use has increased from 30% to 50% of the world total, while the US has decreased it's use from 25% to 17% of the total.
New Zealand uses approximately 0% of the total (even after the increases during Ardern's leadership) yet the hysterical children and other mindless activists are demanding reductions.
And what about the prominent rich business people and Hollywood posers? Well the rich are the cause of the problem, not the solution. A study showed that, per capita, the richest 80 million (top 1%) people in the world will account for 16% of total emissions globally by 2030, up from 13% in 1990.
Finally, despite all the meetings, agreements, and political rhetoric, global coal use is increasing faster than ever before.
So what is the point in "responsible" countries making sacrificies to their economies, and for "investing" vast sums in climate mitigation measures, while spending very little on climate adaptation? As I said above, this has nothing to do with denying climate change; it is totally related to how to deal with it.
There's a lot to be said for creating cleaner forms of energy production, for avoiding inefficient use of fossil fuels, and for being more aware of environmental issues, but only where there is a net gain for the people who are affected.
We could completely shut down our whole country and climate change would carry on with no perceptible change. Even the carbon production of the US could disappear overnight and China and India would more than make up for that loss.
So should the poor countries play their part too? Well, why would they? The obvious way for them to improve the standard of living for their people is to modernise and produce more energy, mainly through the use of fossil fuels.
I mean, what's the choice? Despite massive efforts in rich countries, renewable energy sources like wind and solar still make up a tiny fraction of total production (the amount varies a bit, depending on your source, but I've never seen anything over 6%), and even where they are used they are not reliable, because sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.
Better energy production technology could be developed. It just needs the political will to make it happen. If you don't believe me look at history. The Manhattan Project and the Apollo Project were both massive scientific and engineering undertakings that were completed in quite short times, even though many people thought they weren't possible. If we want something enough, it can be done.
So is the current amount (again the numbers are hard to get accurately, but it seems to be in the trillions) spent on climate change mitigation worth it? Well, obviously I'm saying no. If that same amount was spent on research on nuclear power and on ways to adapt to the climate change which is already happening, I think we would be a lot better off. But then what would the climate activists and green politicians do with their spare time?
Let them go back to the pre-industrial age if they want to. But don't ask the rest of us to. Why should we?
We live in a complex society and we need some structure, don't we. I don't think many people would disagree - apart from anarchists, who are a very small minority - but the question soon becomes how should the structure be implemented.
There are two broad approaches, neither of which ever occur in their pure form because actual societies exist in a continuum between the extremes. The two approaches, put in simple terms, are central control, or top-down; and distributed control, or bottom-up.
I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I prefer the second, but I recognise that some central control can sometimes be helpful, if not essential. As my repeated theme on this states: I always form opinions based on nuanced views away from the extremes.
The two approaches sometimes manifest as left and right, or socialist and capitalist, or collectivist and individualist, but what lead me to wanting to discuss this topic now?
Well, you might think it is related to the upcoming election, here in New Zealand, and that is partly true, because that involves a fairly clear choice between the left (Labour, Green, Maori) versus the right (National, Act, NZ First). Labour have centralised several services during their time in power, and that appears to have been a complete disaster, so I'm hoping the right parties (who are very likely to win) might be able to reverse some of this damage.
You might also think it is related to global trends demanding centralised control to help mitigate the worst effects of alleged existential threats, such as climate change, and that is also partly true.
But what really got me started on this path was some interesting interactions I recently had on social media: YouTube, Facebook, and X (aka Twitter)...
The first was regarding a couple of extreme, woke politicians: Justin Trudeau of Canada, and Jacinda Ardern from New Zealand. After an item criticising Trudeau for his extremely draconian actions during COVID, I commented that he was one of the few politicians who was even more of a tyrant than our own Jacinda.
A commenter asked me what it was about her that I disliked so much, and I had to stop and think for a while, because after you get into the habit of criticising a public figure for a while, you can easily forget the actual reason you're doing it! In her case I think it was her authoritarianism, total confidence that she was right even when there were good reasons to doubt that, and insistence on centralising power around herself. In other words, she was a tyrant.
Luckily, because we are still a democracy here, although Ardern and her followers would like to change that, we managed to get rid of her. In fact she ran away like the coward she is before we had the chance to unceremoniously throw her out, like we are very likely to do to her unfortunate successor.
The second interaction was an item blaming climate change on private companies. The implication was that business and capitalism in general is bad because it encourages self-centered behaviour which favours the privileged company owners while causing harm to everyone else.
I agree there is some truth in this, and I have discussed this problem, in the context of game theory and the tragedy of the commons, in the past. But it's a very simplistic way to look at this, because businesses provide a lot of good as well as bad, and bad outcomes often come from more centralised institutions, like governments, as much as companies.
I replied to the discussion with something like this: if companies are to blame for climate change, why is it that China has built more coal fired power stations than the rest of the world combined, and this is primarily because of the communist government there?
I didn't get a reply.
The US, which primarily has a capitalist economy, has reduced its carbon emissions quite substantially, while China, with its primarily communist economy, has increased theirs massively. Yet companies are to blame? Really?
Note that I'm not making any absolute claims about this, and I recognise that the reductions in the US are at least partly due to government regulations, but as I said at the start of this, I believe in a mixed model, and it's the extremists who see it too simply that I object to.
So I think a competitive model, based on capitalism, is the better approach, but sometimes government control is necessary to correct any "market failures". Market failures might include climate change, because it's to each individual company's advantage to not be too concerned with the environment... until they all follow that approach! Climate change is a "externality" that traditional economic models do not consider.
There are plenty of examples where large corporations have acted in very uncaring, dictatorial, and malicious ways, but at least when dealing with companies you generally have a choice. With governments you have tend to have few options, and when their tyranny becomes extreme, like it did during the pandemic, you have no choice at all.
So I prefer the tyranny of companies rather than the tyranny of governments. It's a slightly less inescapable version, and one which is less all-encompassing.
Can you imagine a company demanding that you stay in your house, never interact with other people, and call the police if you see your friends, neighbours, and family members daring to enjoy a little bit of freedom? That's what the evil tyrant Ardern demanded, and to ensure her dictatorship wasn't questioned she tried to shut down alternative opinions and told us that she was the sole source of reliable information, even though she had already got a lot of things wrong by then. Well, that's how Nazi Germany got started!
That last paragraph was deliberate hyperbole, and a little bit of fun (especially the last sentence, which was taken from "Fawlty Towers") but I think there is an element of truth there.
Sure, you could say that Ardern instituted all those controls for the good of everyone during a serious health emergency, but that illustrates the danger of a person who is totally convinced she is right, and acts in a paternalistic way (despite being a woman) because she is on "the right side of history". Watch out for that phrase I just quoted: it is a sure sign of dishonesty and arrogance.
People who do things because they think they know better, have the high moral ground, or are better informed are by far the most dangerous. The others who do bad things and know it are much easier to manage.
I think tyranny is inevitable to some extent, but we should try to minimise it, and try to give people the choice of what type of tyranny they are controlled by. Democracy gives us that ability to some extent, but it can be quite hard to tell the difference between the policies of the left and right at this stage of history. It's very much a matter of choosing the least bad option.
And I have to admit that private companies aren't a lot better in many ways, but they should still be preferred, because only governments have the legal right to use violence and deprive us of your freedoms.
So choose the least bad option, and choose your tyranny!
The modern world seems to be driven far too much by emotion, and far too little by rationality. It's difficult to say whether this is because the decision makers are irrational, or whether they are just playing a game to stay popular with the hysterical masses. Maybe it's a bit of both.
Where does lack of rationality show up? Well, almost everywhere really, but in this post I want to concentrate on policies around climate change. Are actions being taken to reduce climate change rational? Are they the best we can reasonably do? Is climate change even real?
Well, before I go any further I have to say that I am not a cimate change denier. I think the evidence for it is sufficiently good that we can reasonably say it is true, and the evidence that it is primarily caused by human activity is also good, although not certain. My area of skepticism on this subject is not whether it exists or not, but what, if anything, we should be doing about it.
There is good reason to think that climate change will cause some areas of the world to become far more difficult to live in. This particularly applies to places which are already marginal, like the Middle East. It is somewhat ironic, that the area of the world a large proportion of fossil fuels comes from will be worst affected, but I will avoid any feelings of schadenfreude here!
There is also a real risk of rising sea levels making life difficult in some areas of the world as they are inundated by the sea, and a large fraction of our cities are near sea level.
There are several other problems as well, such as deaths caused by higher temperatures, crop failure because of drought, and increased damage from natural disasters such as forest fires and hurricanes.
But note that I don't believe this is an "existential" threat. I don't think there is any chance this will mean the end of humanity, or even massive loss of life, and it certainly doesn't mean the end of life on Earth, or the end of the planet itself. Those are all examples of the mindless hysteria peddled by pressure groups who are either very ignorant or incredibly dishonest about their real objectives.
But, despite that, it seems simple, doesn't it? We don't want any of the bad things I listed above to happen, so surely we should be doing all we can to stop climate change.
Well, no. We shouldn't. We should be doing what is reasonable to prevent excessive warming, but every action has a cost as well as a benefit, and those need to be balanced.
Some people would say that no financial cost is too much to pay to save the planet, but this is wrong in two ways: first we don't need to save the planet, we just need to try to make it more liveable; and second, financial costs have consequences, because resources put into mitigating climate change might have been used to eliminate poverty, or cure diseases, or reduce pollution.
And the argument that increased wealth only benefits the rich is untrue. It may disproportionately help them, but there is a clear link between the economic success of a country and the average standard of living of its people.
So I think there is a very good case to say that some action should be taken to help reduce warming, but it should be related to the benefits it brings, and be balanced against the costs.
Current efforts are pretty pathetic. The current global efforts primarily involve the Paris Agreement. This isn't a single agreement, it is a series of pledges which differ greatly from one country to another. And it is currently failing miserably with practically no major country coming close to achieving their agreed goals.
So we are spending trillions on an agreement which will never succeed, and every effort seems more like an attempt at global virtue signalling rather than a genuine effort to improve anything.
For example, here in New Zealand, we produce such a small proportion of total global emissions that it is barely even worth us trying, but our government may still have to spend billions buying carbon credits overseas to meet its climate targets, according to a recent report.
And while those billions are being spent to achieve nothing of any real merit, we have a health system which is falling apart, an education system which seems to failing, and a cost of living crisis where a significant number of people can't live a decent life.
The government has tried to reduce our carbon production by subsidising electric cars, and there are certainly more around now than there was in the past, but only the middle to upper classes can afford these, and the poor are stuck with paying more for fossil fuels for their old internal combustion engine (ICE) cars. Is this really the best a left-wing government can do?
Carbon taxes have some merit, but they would need to be universal to be truly effective. For example, if the US imposed a carbon tax, but China didn't, many companies would switch production to China, which would both make no difference to carbon production, but would also cause massive harm to the US economy.
It would require the utmost optimism to think that all countries would ever agree to a standard carbon tax across the globe, so that option has major problems. But is it really any different in principle from the uneven adherence different countries have to the Paris Agreement?
In the past there is arguably only one way we have ever made real progress, and it's not through government interference, extra taxes, or global agreements. It is through innovation.
Look at the "crises" we have had in the past, which were viewed in very similar ways to the global warming crisis today...
Before we had motorised transport the people of London were debating how horse manure could ever be eliminated from the streets, as more and more people used horses for transport in that city. But there was no need to solve that problem because cars came along (ironically powered by fossil fuels) eliminating the horses. When air pollution became an issue, more efficient engines and catalytic converters solved that problem too.
Almost 100 years ago, it looked like there was going to be mass famine because the world's food production systems couldn't keep up with demand for food from the increasing population. But in the 1940s and 1950s Norman Borlaug created many ways to improve the productivity of food crops, and basically avoided starvation around the world.
There is an extensive list of innovations which ended potential so-called global disasters. I'm not saying government action has never helped, because it is well recognised in economics that not all factors are accounted for by traditional markets. Economics has "externalities", which are costs which economics doesn't account for (because they have no immediate financial effect) and climate change is one of these. It may be that incentives are necessary to encourage innovation in this area.
If we spent a lot more on true innovation instead of playing a crazy game of spending trillions on mostly ineffective measures, like we do now, it would most likely be possible to fix climate change and boost the economies of the world at the same time.
What form would these innovations take? Well, that's hard to say, because by nature they are often hard to predict, but there are two obvious types...
First, we could find new forms of energy which were cost effective and reliable, unlike solar and wind. I would suggest we need nuclear energy: fission until the fusion process is perfected, which might finally be happening. Those plants could be used to produce fuels which release no carbon, like hydrogen. It might even be possible to adapt existing internal combustion engines to run on this fuel.
Second, we might be able to find a way to remove excess carbon, either from the atmosphere itself, or at the exhausts of cars or chimneys of coal fired power plants. Note that removing it from the atmosphere seems like a huge project, but we would have trillions to invest, and that would have the advantage of reducing existing excess CO2 levels.
In fact, some economists have shown that for every dollar spent on "green" innovations, about $10 would be gained by reduced need for climate change mitigation measures. I don't necessarily believe this exact number, but maybe it has some degree of merit. And many countries actually signed up to an agreement to increase innovation in that area, but never actioned those promises. Sound familiar?
At this point you might be saying, if it is as easy as I suggest, why does almost every government in the world follow a different path? As I said above, governments are rarely driven by rationality and careful thought. They tend to be reactive to demands from pressure groups, and the climate change groups, including the silly hysterical children who think they are doomed to die from climate change, are amongst the most strident and most visible, to the extent that a majority of the population have been taken in by their claims.
Maybe when the Paris Agreement fails, instead of signing up for yet another piece of harmful bureaucracy, we might see that there is another way. Use tools like carbon taxes and subsidies to a reasonable extent, but put most effort into innovation. We need a truly smart person - another Norman Borlaug - to produce a solution.
The existing attempts at reducing carbon have failed us. Why keep trying the same thing over and over, when we know that human nature makes them unlikely to work? It's time for a better approach, and to forget about the climate change BS.
We all know what clickbait is, don't we? It's when a headline or summary of a bigger story is deliberately confrontational or controversial in an attempt to drive traffic to what might be a fairly mundane story. And yes, this post is an example of that, because I don't really blame women for anything.
The major reason for this is that blaming a demographic for anything bad, or praising them for anything good, is just an example fo one of the modern political trends I dislike the most: identity politics. So I don't blame any demographic group for anything. I don't blame Maori for the silly Treaty laws we have, I don't blame men for violence, I don't blame trans people for the ridiculous gender politics we are currently being afflicted with, and I don't blame women for what I am about to discuss.
I do blame activists at the extremes in all of those groups for pushing irrational and harmful ideologies, allegedly on behalf of the group as a whole, but often without their actual acceptance. For example, I know Maori people who are embarrassed with all the extra handouts they get, I know trans people who don't like the push to allow men into women's sports, where they don't belong, etc.
In fact, it is exactly this political view which I probably find is the worst characteristic of the woke extreme left. Note that by criticising a political group I am not breaking my rule, because I am aiming my criticism at a belief rather than at an immutable characteristic (such as race or sex) a group might have.
But despite these limitations, the title still has some meaning. I mean, I'm not going to use that title, then talk about more geeky computer stuff, like my last post. I am going to discuss some of the issues I have with female characteristics which I think are harmful. So it is the "feminisation" of society which I think is a problem, but both men and women push this agenda, so again, it is the ideology I have problems with, not a particular demographic group.
I think it is well proven that men and women are different, and that a significant part of that difference isn't the result of societal expectations or social programming. Women, for example tend to have better communications skills, but men have better skills in visualising and manipulating the environment. Women are interested in people, and men are interested in things. Women tend to be more likely to be agreeable, and less likely to want to take risks. Men are more confrontational and not as risk averse.
Notice that neither I, nor the studies, are saying one sex is better than the other overall, because both have strengths and weaknesses. We should celebrate these differences and work together to get the best results, but modern woke ideology likes to deny the differences even exist, and when they do acknowledge them, prefer to ascribe them to social influence rather than inherent factors.
As is the case in almost every manifestation of the nature versus nurture debate, there is no doubt that both have an influence, but denying either is both factually wrong and likely to lead to poor societal outcomes.
Finally, in this rather long-winded introduction, I have to emphasise that there is massive overlap in these characteristics in the sexes. There are plenty of women who are good at reading a map, for example, but on average, men are better. And yes, that is a real thing, supported by research! And I can provide citations for all the studies I have mentioned, but this is a blog, not an academic paper, so I'm not going to include them in the post.
I'm going to make a stereotyped observation here, which is undoubtedly controversial. It is that women tend to be more emotional and men more analytical. It is controversial first, because recent research is contradictory; and second, because this could be one place where the result comes from societal expectations and pressures more than from inherent characteristics. However, I believe in general it is true.
A current trend amongst young people is for females to drift to the political left, while males are more likely to prefer the right. Again, this is a gross simplification, and there are plenty of exceptions, but it is a clear tendency.
I would also claim, perhaps also controversially, that the left deals more in emotions and the right is more analytical. For example, the left might say we need to give the poor more money in benefits because that is an example of kindness or fairness, but the right might say fix the economy and that will help everyone. I would say there are problems with both of these approaches, but I think the more analytical one is likely to be better long term than an appeal to emotion resulting in a short term, artificial boost.
At this point, my New Zealand readers might have an image of our ex prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, in their minds with one of her trademark sad faces and saying how we all need to be kind. I apologise for those of you who were trying to move past this unpleasant image from the past! But many people would welcome it, and use it as an example of what a great leader she was. I know this because many people say so, and I even know of one person with a poster in her office showing that exact image and proclaiming that it is an example of "real leadership".
Some other people might have thought of another leader of a similar type: Justin Trudeau, prime minister of Canada. Sure, he's not a woman, but his politics are very feminised, and are remarkably similar to Ardern's. He also is likely to be dismissed from office at the next election and will join Ardern as someone whose "kindness" was exposed as tyranny.
Emotion has its place. You might argue that it was appropriate in crisis situations like the pandemic, the Christchurch shooting, and the White Island eruption. I would suggest it isn't, but I accept there is a fair argument that Ardern's emotional approach (whether genuine or fake) helped a lot of people in those extreme situations.
But emotion can only go so far, because wanting something to be true, because it's kind, is not the same as it actually being true. Taxing the rich might seem fair, but it has unintended consequences; pretending men who transition are women might seem kind, but it isn't kind to some women who are inflicted with unpleasant outcomes; and handing out money to disadvantaged groups might feel like a great solution to inequality, but these things have a tendency to backfire with inflation, increased rents, etc.
Toxic masculinity is a popular phrase amongst members of the woke community. It is often used to suggest all men, and everything male, is toxic, although when challenged on this the person using that insult might backtrack somewhat saying that it is only the extremes of masculinity they have problems with.
I think there is no doubt though, that female culture (yes, I know, another generalisation) is in the ascendency, and some people might celebrate that. But how can one half of the population enjoying that advantage now be any better than the past where the other half were dominant?
For example, is it good that the majority of university students are female now, and that females are doing far better in education as a whole, when in the past when the opposite was true, that was condemned? And why do we celebrate when a woman assumes a leadership role, or there are a majority of women in a political party or other organisation, when we decry the opposite situation?
And why are we surprised when people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate appeal to many men, when they are being denigrated by society in general? By the way, I hesitated to use those two as my examples, because they are so different in style, but they are the two most prominent people with these views at this time.
Of course they are going to gain some following, because they are saying what many of us have been thinking. Again, I have mixed views on both. I think Jordan Peterson is too tied up with mythological metaphors, and Andrew Tate is often extreme to the point of irrationality, but I do think his recent arrest was political rather than genuine.
So apart from fairness, which I reject because it is one of the emotional responses I criticised above, what is my problem here?
Well freedom is curtailed when we have too much caution, and caution is a female characteristic. You might say that was appropriate during COVID, and I can understand that attitude, but we went away too far. Along with the caution were some very unkind actions, such as censorship of opposing views, and compulsion of what should be a personal decision, such as vaccination.
And caution also slows down progress. We need nuclear energy, but many current governments have banned it, and some have even shut down existing plants. The same applies to other new technologies, like artificial intelligence and gene editing. Note that we need some caution here, but not as much as we have. Again, it's balance which is important.
And, as I said above, kindness is often the least kind attitude possible, as well as the least rational. Prentending men who have transitioned, or even say they identify that way, really are women might seem kind, but is it kind to the women who are no longer competitive in their chosen sport, or who feel uncomfortable when a biological male uses their facilities? I think it's neither true, nor kind.
What this is really about is my old friend postmodernism again, but I wanted to try to get through one political post without mentioning that! I will finish by saying one thing though: many of the "thinkers" (and I use that word very loosely here) behind modern postmodernism were and are women. Case closed!
Sometimes it can be very difficult to understand why things are the way they are. In past posts I have offered various convoluted explanations of the state of the world, but recently I heard two short and simple statements which I think explain a lot of what is happening in the world.
Of course, if I just quoted these two statements this would be a short blog post, so I will offer some explanation, expansion, and defence of each one.
The two statements are "no movement ever declares victory", and "everything looks bad under a microscope".
Before I offer my analysis of these, have a think about them yourself and see if you can guess where I'm going here. It might be obvious to past readers of this blog, but maybe not.
So, the first: "no movement ever declares victory" is a concise summary of what I have been saying in the past about political and/or social movements not knowing when to stop. A classic manifestation of this is the "St George in Retirement" effect, which I first discussed in a post with that title from 2019-10-04, but have also quoted several times since.
I will briefly describe this effect yet again. It is basically saying that many political movements start with good intentions, and with a genuine problem to solve, but once they get started, they never want to admit they have succeeded, because the members' whole identity becomes tied up with the movement, and they can't admit the movement is no longer necessary.
To justify the continued existence of the movement they must look for new reasons for it to continue, which become less and less credible. In fact, this search for new issues is an important part of the second quote (see below).
The classic examples here are feminism and racial equality. There is no doubt that in the past both women and racial minorities have not been given fair treatment. Initially this was obvious, because women might not have been allowed to vote, or black people in the US might not have been able to use the same facilities as whites, and organised resistance to these situations was fully justified.
But now it is illegal to disadvantage these groups. Women have the vote and participate in the political system in every "civilised" country, and racial minorities also gain all the same rights as everyone else, and also participate fairly in the political system.
So you might think the feminists and race activists might say "OK, our job here is done, time to move on to something else". But, of course, they don't. Real bias against the groups they support no longer exists, so they have to create new ones. They never declare victory.
Note the use of the word "civilised" in quotes above. I used that to mean mainly western countries, where equality really does exist. If feminists really wanted to improve the situation for women maybe they should be looking at some countries under Islamic rule. But no, as a rule they don't, because that might be seen as "Islamophobic".
Also note that some, especially more modern, movements didn't even start with a rational goal. For example, Black Lives Matter was always fake, dangerous, and hysterical. It's reason for existing never had any basis in fact.
Now let's look at the second quote: "everything looks bad under a microscope".
Microscopes do two things: first (obviously) they make things look bigger; and second (more subtly) they focus on a very small part of the whole.
So the metaphor here should be obvious now: look at anything in sufficient detail, and concentrate on magnifying one small part while ignoring the rest, and you can make anything look bad.
For example, BLM might look at the killing of George Floyd and magnify it to a status far beyond what it really deserves, while ignoring the hugely more significant number of black people murdered by other blacks. Or trans activists might make a huge deal out of the way some trans people feel about being excluded from facilities for the gender they identify as, while ignoring the people who really are naturally of that gender who are disadvantaged by the trans activists' demands.
Look at anything in sufficient detail, and be selective about where you look, and you will always see something bad. This applies to people, institutions, countries, and societies. Look at modern American society and you will find fault, but look at any other and you will also see it. Native American societies often engaged in war, used slaves, and were grossly unequal, but do we hear much about that? No, we hear about far lesser issues with contemporary and historic western societies instead.
Look at the life of any person and you will see they have made mistakes, even icons of the activist causes, like Martin Luther King Junior or Mahatma Gandhi. Do we hear demands to remove statues of them, or remove them from the teaching of history? No, we hear those demands about similarly flawed leaders of the western world instead, such as Churchill.
So there's the cause of many of the problems of the western world today, mostly based around woke-ism (yeah, sorry to bring that up again, but it really is the biggest problem in the modern world). People see a problem, and want to fix it, but when they succeed, they can't stop and continue to demand a fix for something that isn't broken. To justify these demands they carefully select certain issues and blow them out of all proportion. First, they fail to declare victory, then they get out the microscope!
You have requested 20 entries and 20 have been displayed.
I do podcasts too!. You can listen to my latest podcast, here: OJB's Podcast 2024-04-30 The Fall of Rome: I'm afraid that we really might be seeing the demise of the greatest era in history..
BLOG SEARCH PAGE