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!
Am I Woke?
2024-10-15. Politics. Rating 4. ID 2367.
My regular readers may have noticed that I have been talking about (that is, ranting about) woke-ism a lot recently. I consider it an important subject, and a major cause of many of the problems in the developed world today, but what actually is it? How do you tell if someone is woke, and how can you tell if you might be?
First, let me say that I know a lot of woke people, and many of them are actually pretty nice, so being woke isn't an automatic way to be rejected by me, although I suspect that if a lot of those same people read this blog they might reject me, because many woke people are not known for their tolerance of alternative views!
Also, I have to concede that most woke issues have their roots in real problems and they aren't totally ridiculous in themselves, they just become a problem when people take them too seriously and go too far. And there are good reasons to answer some of these questions the same way a woke person would, but if you answer them all (or a majority of) the questions this way, then that is a sign of wokeness!
So here are some questions, and my comments on them, you can use to decide whether a person (or yourself) is woke...
What is a woman?
This is the ultimate single question which reveals a lot about the person attempting to answer it. It is such an apparently innocent and simple question, but watching people try to justify their answers it is pretty funny. I can still remember our previous prime minister being completely bamboozled by it.
The "correct" answer is "an adult human female", but that goes against trans ideology, because the woke mob insists that trans women (actually men) are identical to "real" women. They often say "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman", but when the tautological nature of this statement is pointed out they have no answer.
Is indigenous science a thing?
In their enthusiasm to pretend every culture is as good as any other, or that native cultures are actually superior, woke people like to pretend that the positive parts of Western culture also exist in "minority" cultures. Note that I'm talking about the process of science here, not random knowledge the culture might have accumulated during its existence.
In New Zealand we have a pile of ridiculous claims about "Maori science", which doesn't even really exist. If you think it does, or that indigenous cultures have "deep knowledge" we need to incorporate into real science, then you're wrong... and woke.
Is a trans woman a real woman?
This relates back to the "what is a woman" question. Woke people think that a man who has transitioned to living as a woman actually is a woman and totally indistinguishable from the "real thing" (which they deny exists). The idea is insane, and totally woke.
Do you support BLM, MeToo, Free Palestine, etc?
There are many sources of activism which aren't totally without merit, but if you take these movements really seriously and refuse to see their obvious deficiencies then you are... you guessed it... woke!
Do you think there is a gender wage gap?
On average, women do get paid less than men, but women also work fewer hours, take more time off, work in lower paid jobs, and aren't as aggressive in pursuing more money. Note that I am talking about on average here, and exceptions to these exist. But there is no gender wage gap, and if you think there is, you're woke.
What do you think of Elon Musk? Donald Trump? Jeff Bezos?
If you disapprove of these people, especially if it is because you don't like rich old white guys, then you're likely woke. I can understand that they are all controversial, but I think we need to acknowledge their good points as well.
You are probably getting the idea by now, but here are a few others you might want to consider...
Do you think Greta Thunberg is a force for good?
Is abortion simply the woman's choice?
Is capitalism a problem and Marxism a better economic system?
Should we allow more refugees into the country?
Should we decolonise the country?
Do you think Trump is a danger to democracy?
Was George Floyd a hero?
Do you think all white people have unearned privilege?
There are 14 questions. How did you score on those? If you gave a woke answer to a few you are probably OK. As I said, there is room for some nuance in all of these. If you gave a woke answer for 10 or more, well, there's no hope for you. All I can suggest is to learn to start thinking for yourself instead of repeating the ideological talking points pushed by the woke media.
It seems to me that the big problem with the "civilised" world today is that so many people are making the wrong decision when it comes to deciding between supporting what is nice versus what is true. The word "nice" here doesn't literally mean that, of course, because the end result of supporting the ideology of "niceness" (or "kindness" if you want to use the word used by our own petty tyrant, Jacinda Ardern) is often anything but nice.
When you think you are being nice you might also believe you are "doing the right thing" or are "on the right side of history". It's a very dangerous attitude, because people who are convinced they are on the right side don't worry too much about what is true and can easily dismiss opposing views because they are evil (they must be, because they oppose you, and you are "doing the right thing").
So let's look at a few examples of where this phenomenon occurs...
Example 1: Israel versus Palestine.
Most (but not all) of the people who support the Palestinian side in this conflict do it because they think supporting the "underdog" is the nice thing to do, then confuse that with doing the right thing. And they rarely take too much notice of the facts, which explains the unbelievable ignorance of many (but again, not all) people on the side of Palestine.
They think Israel is an apartheid state, is engaging in genocide, and is the aggressor in the war. None of these (or most of the other points produced by the anti-Israel side) can really be seen as being true, but they seem to think that if they say "stop the genocide in Gaza" often enough it will mean there actually is genocide there.
By the way, if you are against Israel in this conflict, read my blog post "Which River?" from 2024-03-21 and try to refute my points by adding a comment. I try to be fact-based, so if you can show me where I'm wrong, maybe I will change my mind.
Example 2: LGBTQIA+ ideology.
Trans people have a tough time so it would appear to be nice to support them as much as possible, wouldn't it? Well yes, as long as your support for them doesn't start adversely affecting other people in society, which of course, it does.
So there is the kindness of allowing trans women (born as men) access to women's sport, private spaces, etc. And if we were only allowing for the needs of the trans community that actually would be kind. But by being kind to that group you are inflicting harm on another, in this case primarily women.
So the niceness is never universal, because it is focussed on one group, which is usually the one which is seen as a minority or one which was disadvantaged by majority attitudes, and sometimes even laws, in the past. And the facts again are ignored. Many trans activists say they think trans women are identical to people actually born as women, that they have no advantage in sport, and that they do no harm to women. All of these points are wrong, but again they seem to think that by repeating a lie often enough it becomes the truth.
Example 3: Marxism versus Capitalism
Marxism superficially seems like a "nice" doctrine. Marx's famous slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" sounds great in theory, because everyone gets what they need. Isn't that nicer than capitalism which encourages greed?
Well in some ways that has some merit, because pure capitalism has obvious problems, but if we look at actual Marxist states (or at least states where Marxist inspired regimes have held power) we see they universally fail and create a terrible standard of living for the people.
How would you like to live in the USSR, or North Korea, or East Germany, or Venezuela? If you want a simple test of the effectiveness of the two main political/economic systems look at North versus South Korea or East versus West Germany (when they existed as separate states). Marxist doctrine doesn't look so nice then, does it?
By the way, I know that some states which are labelled Marxist may not fit that description formally, but they are all inspired by the ideas of Marx, and that's the criterion I am using.
Example 4: DEI
Diversity, equity, and inclusion is an ideology which tries to equalise the number of people from all backgrounds in different important roles. So political parties should have the same number of women as men, or black and white people, or straight and "gender diverse" people. If the balance doesn't exist then more diverse people should be hired or assigned to these roles.
It seems nice, doesn't it? But there are numerous issues with DEI which are often very obvious when you look at the bigger picture. For every person hired to do a job because of their race, gender, etc there might be many who would be more competent but didn't get the job. Hiring based on DEI tends to create a more politically correct environment. And hiring on any attribute other than proficiency reduces the overall competence of the workplace.
So I will close with two points: first, anyone who thinks they are being nice probably isn't, because they don't look at the negatives of their actions. And second, even if a person is being unquestionably nice, is that more important than being factual? Are nice fantasies better than hard truths? I don't think so.
The police are an interesting institution. While I don't like the idea that a bunch of people have power over the rest of us, and I don't like the fact that they occasionally misuse that power, I also have to admit that they are necessary to maintain order.
So it is important that the police have the ability to do what they need to, but it is also important that their power is constrained to what is reasonable and necessary. This delicate balance is usually maintained by the police only enforcing laws which are created by our elected representatives in government, so it would be very concerning if they started creating their own rules, wouldn't it.
But increasingly this seems to be a thing. The police (I'm talking about New Zealand here, but similar arguments apply to most other modern, Western countries) are pursuing their own agenda and have been selectively enforcing laws for years, and now have gone even further and appear to be creating their own.
I'm talking about a "training program" the police management have recently forced their staff to take regarding "hate speech". Here is my comment on X regarding this program: Oh no, not a "training program". We know what that often means: "political propaganda indoctrination".
Here are some examples of things the police don't want you to say any more: that there are only two genders, anything involving the phrase "kiwi not iwi", anything which might be seen as negative to Palestine. For example, recently a woman arrested for "disorderly conduct" when she said "Where is Palestine? What is Palestine? It's not a nation."
It doesn't seem to matter whether these things are true or not. For example, it's reasonable to say that Palestine isn't a nation, and depending on the definitions you prefer, there are only two genders. I fully agree that you could make arguments against these two points too, but why can't we at least have the discussion about it?
It's not just New Zealand police, of course, this problem is affecting public and private institutions and companies around the world.
Police in Britain and the US seem to have a very uneven interpretation of laws depending on the group involved. For example, protests by left-wing extremists, like BLM, are allowed, and even encouraged, but similar situations involving the right (especially what is conveniently referred to as the "far right") are treated more seriously.
Many large companies have strong policies favouring modern, politically correct (or "woke" if you prefer) ideas even though they have no real mandate to hold or enforce those views.
And back to here in New Zealand, it seems almost universal that public institutions will have many policies granting special privileges to "minority" groups, especially Maori. Again, these are not part of law or even part of the current government's agenda. And the current government was voted in partly for their policies of removing laws and policies granting special privileges based on race.
For example, New Zealand's drug buying agency, Pharmac, has created policies based on what appears to be a fictitious reading of the Treaty of Waitangi and used that as an excuse for actions which are racist by any reasonable definition. The government is working on fixing this, but it is very clear that the heads of these organisations are going to resist government direction as much as they can.
Many people have many different perspectives on modern societal issues. If someone disagrees with your views it is just too easy to label that as hate and call the cops. The problem with hate speech is not the speech, it is the hate, and that exists whether it is given a means of expression or not. Also, what is defined as hate is highly subjective. Is it hateful to say that Palestine isn't a country? Whether it is or not is debatable, so let's debate it.
As I said at the start, the police have been given the powers they have as a necessary way to control the unruly elements of society, but this right should not be taken advantage of. If citizens decide they can't trust the police we have a problem. Sometimes the attitude that they cannot be trusted is false, as I have argued in the past when criticising BLM, but if they use their powers to suppress speech just because it doesn't suit their preferred ideology then we really do have genuine reasons to mistrust them. That is not a good situation to be in.
So we need to reject any attempt police might make to control the narrative, not just for the benefit of the people being targeted for inconvenient opinions, but for the good of the police as well, and of society in general. My advice to police is this: stop playing politics and get on with your real job.
A common problem with many countries in the Western world currently seems to be what I call "the rise of the bureaucrats". We see government organisations trying to implement their own agendas, ignoring government policies, and enhancing their own influence through overreach of their intended functions. Additionally, these organisations often become infested with large numbers of managers who don't always provide any positive benefit, in fact, in general I would be tempted to say that the more managers you have, the more poorly the organisation will run, although that probably isn't always true.
A recent example of this phenomenon here in New Zealand is Health New Zealand, the large bureaucracy which replaced district health boards through the previous government's policy.
Here are a few worrying facts about it: there were 14 layers of bureaucracy between the board and the clinicians "at the coal face", about 2500 new middle managers were hired in recent years, and it spends $130 million per month over its budget.
I must admit, the 14 layers thing sounds insane, but no one has contradicted that so far, including the leader of the opposition when he was defending the new structure, so I guess it must be true. If we are going to have a management structure at all, surely a "flatter" one would be better. Maybe, for an admittedly quite large organisation, 5 layers would be more appropriate.
And what could those 2500 middle managers possibly be doing? Assuming they are paid at a fairly typical rate could we not have hired a substantial number of clinicians instead for the same price, or maybe just saved the money we are wasting on them?
And that overspending has not been justified and there seems to be no gains in core capabilities. The logical conclusion is all that extra expense is going to those managers. Considering the new structure was supposed to reduce wasteful spending on non-core functions, this seems problematic.
So seeing that the current organisation is rotten to the core the government decided to sack the board and appoint a commissioner instead. In general I don't approve of this sort of move, because depending on who you put in as commissioner you can get whatever agenda you want put in place, but sometimes even a move like this, which seems too controlling, is necessary.
A person I heard interviewed who works in health (and I mean works, not manages) said that impractical reforms were being pushed through, that there were no targets or specific measures of success, that there was no real accountability at the top, and that the more effective co-workers just ignored the bureaucrats and got on with job.
I have little doubt that almost every large organisation suffers from exactly the same problem. Other ministries and government institutions seem to be victims of the same issues: that is overbearing, incompetent, arrogant "leadership". Note that I put that last word in quotes because these people aren't leaders in the true sense, they are petty dictators prepared to use the system they have created (HR departments, etc) to crush resistance.
And it's even worse than what I have portrayed so far, because the same inefficient, dysfunctional organisations affected by this plague are crying poor and demanding more money so they can keep running. Well, if they want to run within their budgets, don't complain about your funding, or shut down core services, just get rid of those extra managers instead!
Unfortunately, that is unlikely unless a major intervention, like a commissioner, is used. But I would suggest we could use Health NZ as a test case and, if the commissioner can make major improvements in say a year (we would need to define what success actually is, of course, but in the case of Health NZ I believe it is to save $1 billion) then use the same method for similar institutions, like social welfare, universities, the ministry of education, etc.
I've used this example before, but remember in previous posts where I said that when Elon Musk took over at Twitter (now X) he fired 80% of the staff and the place seems to be working better than ever? Yeah, we need more of that.
Let's find all the corrupt and incompetent boards, committees, and management structures and sack them all!
There are several common proverbs which I think have relevance to many political situations we see around the world today. Here are a few: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good; you can't have your cake and eat it too; and (maybe my favourite) there are no solutions, only-trade-offs.
I think many good projects and ideas have failed because of these issues. Here are a few general comments on how...
Imagine we decide we want to proceed with a particular project but someone points out how it could be done even better if we just start again with some aspects of the project changed. Should we stop and start again? Or should we just go ahead? Do we let the pursuit of perfection stop us from attaining the merely good?
Or imagine we wanted to proceed with a project but to do so meant we had to give up something else we valued in some way. Do we cancel the project in that case? Do we say well because I can't keep my cake as well as eat it, I just won't even bake a cake at all?
Finally, imagine a project which is designed to solve a particular problem, but by doing that it creates some other problems, even if they are lesser than the original one. Do we scrap the project and try again? Do we look for a perfect solution instead of accepting there must be trade-offs?
So let's look at a major real-world example in politics today. The New Zealand government wants to encourage more low cost housing to be built. Some of the policies they have implemented to do this involve reducing the amount of paper work, testing, and consultation required before a new building starts; allowing smaller, cheaper units to be built; and allowing more land to be zoned for house building.
Of course, the usual suspects (mainly the opposition, which is fair enough, it is their job, but also many left oriented commentators) have complained bitterly claiming that this will allow lower quality houses to be built which will create "slums" and use up valuable farm land.
Well, sure, all of that is potentially true. But are we letting the pursuit of perfection get in the way of achieving the good? Surely even living in a "slum" (which it really isn't) is better than living in a car, or under a bridge, isn't it? Are we wanting to have our cake (the productive farm land) and eat it (allow more house building) too? Do we not have to accept that some farm land might have to be sacrificed to help solve the housing crisis? And are possibly lower quality and smaller houses a worthwhile trade-off to make them available at the right price?
The previous government spent a lot of time studying the problems they wanted to solve. They spent vast amounts of money on consultants to try to get the perfect solution. In some cases the projects weren't started because they were too busy being planned. In others the solution became impractical because of massive cost over-runs.
Maybe it's better to be pragmatic about these things and risk some possibility of negative side effects so that something can be achieved. Maybe smaller houses, built with less consultation, on land which has other uses is actually the best compromise.
Another area this has occurred here is in gas exploration. The previous government wanted to reduce the country's carbon emissions, so they shut down the search for new gas fields. But now we are running out and importing coal instead. Gas is a far better fuel than coal when CO2 emissions are considered. Additionally it is debatable whether we should even be worrying about CO2, but let's not go there in this post!
Every decision involves compromises between economic, social, environmental, and other factors. If we are unprepared to compromise on any of those we will be effectively paralysed. We just have to admit that some major economic benefits can justify compromises in environmental standards. Of course, I'm not saying that we should dig massive open cast coal mines in the middle of national parks. There has to be some compromise of economic goals to recognise environmental standards, just like there has to be compromise the other way.
After all, there are no perfect solutions, only trade-offs.
There seems to be a trend around the world in many countries, which have in recent years had left oriented governments, to move to the right. The most obvious recent example is France, but here in New Zealand we had a shift at the last election, although our right is fairly moderate compared with some. Other European countries have already gone right, it looks increasingly like the US will (although that is far from certain), and Canada has finally got sick of the hideous Justin Trudeau so they will go right at the next election there.
There are exceptions, of course: Australia shifted left at the last election, and the UK appears to be about to dump its long-time conservative government, but overall I think there is a shift away from the left.
I have moved right myself in recent years so maybe I should be celebrating this, and to some extent I do, because the left (who I supported in the past) have gone insane thanks to woke ideology. People put up with it for a while because of the overwhelming propaganda supporting it from the media, but you can only fool most people for a certain amount of time before they catch on to what is going on.
Political trends do tend to change over time and the most certain thing about governments in all truly democratic countries is that they won't last, because the voters will get sick of them and (rightly or wrongly) want to give the opposition a chance to do better, which they might even do for a while, until they get lazy and things swing back again to where they were.
So victories and defeats for any political ideology are temporary when looked at that way, and it is the greater underlying trends, the "zeitgeist", which is more important.
Starting in the 1980s (thanks in a large part to Ronald Regan) this trend was towards neoliberal political and economic systems. While that achieved some successes, it also had some bad side effects, and things changed at about the time of the new millennium. Then what I call "woke-ism" became dominant. I'm sure it had some good points, although being an avowed opponent I find it hard to think of any, but even if they existed, the bad effects outweighed the good and that has finally caught up with it and it is now on the way out.
Note that during the neoliberal era that philosophy was adopted by what was traditionally the left almost as much as its more natural home, the right. Here in New Zealand it was an allegedly leftist party (the 1984 Labour Government) which introduced it, and Tony Blair's Labour Party in the UK was also an enthusiastic proponent.
And also note that during the current woke era many parties on the right have a fair degree of enthusiasm for it too. It is arguably the woke attitude to political controversies like immigration which has contributed to the fall of the Tories in the UK.
So in many ways which party is in power is of lesser importance and which political philosophy (or ideology if you want to be less generous) is popular is what rally matters. Maybe this is why many people feel like whoever they vote for there is often no improvement in their life. Most parties are following the currently popular trend.
Another factor which cannot be ignored when considering current political change is COVID. There was, and still is, significant resentment for some of the policies adopted during the pandemic. These vary greatly, from people who consider all the restrictions necessary and might have preferred going even further, to those who saw the initial lockdowns as necessary but think they were used too much, to those who reject government control of that type completely.
There seems to be an increasing opinion that many countries did go too far, including here in New Zealand, especially regarding the extensive Auckland lockdowns. And related to that subject, vaccine mandates also have a range of views, but agan many think the government exercised control far too strictly.
For the record, I think we had too many lockdowns and they were too strict here in New Zealand, although I think they were the safest approach initially, and I am ambivalent about vaccine policies, because I am generally pro-vaccination but anti-mandate.
In a previous post I was challenged to say what I thought the mechanism for global political (and other) trends was, and I said it was likely basically "random" ideas which gained positive feedback in an evolutionary way and became dominant. I don't know whether that is true, but the fact that these trends exist seems indisputable.
The only thing I can offer as a remedy is to remain vigilant. If you are becoming too accepting of the material which is being promoted almost universally by the media, or is seen as being "the right thing to do", or being "on the right side of history", or being "the new way we do things now" be cautious. You might just have become a victim of the latest global zeitgeist. Be skeptical, people!
Have you noticed how stuff that used to be quite well accepted is now not tolerated by what seems like large parts of society? Have you noticed how some things which would be considered ridiculous or even dangerous in the past are not considered OK? Or maybe you used to support a particular political party, but now find you cannot any longer because they don't follow your values any more.
What's happening here? Is it you who is changing while the rest of the world is still the same? Well maybe, because people's opinions do change over time, or at least they should, but that is only part of the story, because a bigger factor might be how societal values change, or at least the values of some of the "leaders" in society.
By the way, I put the word leaders in quotes because many people only reluctantly accept that those leaders have influence. Not many people are actually enthusiastic about politicians, managers, or cultural icons like movie and music stars.
So what is considered "appropriate" by the most prominent people in society (such as those categories of person I listed above) changes over time. This is a phenomenon often referred to as the "Overton Window", or the "Overton Window of Political Possibility", named after Joseph Overton, who initially proposed the idea.
I will now give an example, and I apologise in advance for picking such an obvious one, but it is politically relevant today. Trans "women" (people born as men who transitioned to being a woman, or pretend to be a woman, depending on your perspective) would never have been allowed to compete against "real" women in events such as sport, or beauty contests in the past, but now it is considered correct, and anyone disagreeing is considered to be phobic and wrong.
Now I strongly suspect that the majority of people would actually reject this new perspective, and more closely follow the ideas of the past, but the leaders (please just accept that this word is quoted in future, because these people aren't true leaders) are pushing it hard. The Overton Window has swung strongly in the direction of "trans rights".
And you will notice many places where what was once considered common sense and reasonable has now been labelled as "inappropriate" or "conspiracy minded". These particularly occur in politically active social issues such as climate change, indigenous rights, LGBT rights, and social justice.
Note that I am not saying that these issues aren't worth considering, but what I am saying is that the range of "respectable" (there seem to be a lot of quotes in this post) opinions has changed. What used to be mainstream is now considered impolite, incorrect, or even illegal.
Social norms change over time, and that is perfectly appropriate, but they don't always change for the better, and sometimes they swing from one extreme to another, so we should neither automatically accept nor reject the new direction the Overton Window is pointing.
Here's an example of where bias was clearly in place as a result of political norms rather than what was right or wrong: before Elon Musk took over Twitter, many people on the right of politics in the US (I mean the moderate right, not the far right), even Donald Trump himself, were banned, but the Taliban, the world's most active and harmful terror organisation, was allowed. Really?
By the way, I'm sorry to again use Twitter as an example of political trends, but it really is what shows us the direction society is going, ahead of anything else. Despite the poor opinion many people have, it is where the action is!
There is one last point I need to make here. Anything that isn't in the window needs to be taken seriously. Current trends need to be examined carefully. What is off to the left of the window currently, or more likely to the right, because it has currently swung well left, might be in the middle tomorrow.
So don't be too concerned if your opinions are currently unpopular. The window never stands still. It is difficult to support ideas outside of the window, but it is critical that we all do, otherwise it will never return to a sensible place.
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.
BLOG SEARCH PAGE