My only quibble with this essay is the first sentence. Equalitarianism didn't spread through college campuses and bureaucracies in the last five years. It has been dominant in academia since the 60s and in bureaucracies since the 80s. It took root in the intelligentsia in the 20s. What is true is that it only started to be widely apparent to a mass public in recent years. The reason why it is important to stress this historical timeline is that we in the West have deluded ourselves for too long - ever since WW2 - that there were two equally valid political perspectives....a 'Left' one and a 'Right' one. This was never true. The Leftist equalitarian perspective has always been bogus. We are now living with the consequences of indulging an intelligentsia mind-game that was always sooner or later destined to lead to the civilisational mess we're in now. Maybe it was ultimately unstoppable but calling things by their right names all those decades ago might have reined it in considerably. This is not just a five year, a ten year or even a twenty year old malaise and it's important to always be clear about that.
"...It has been dominant in academia since the 60s..."
Yes. I first saw it there when I started college in '65. It was extremely, reflexively, appealing to youthful exuberance and the desire to declare an identity independent of one's family.
The information presented here is very useful. The recommendation, not so much.
What does it mean to kill the seeds of equalitarianism? Maybe some things are better left to be inferred. Ok. But it would be helpful to spell out what the author is NOT suggesting.
To be specific, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wanted a political equality of natural rights, under the rule of law, which rejected the double standard of serfs vs. nobles in medieval Europe.
The woke Left is abandoning the rule of law and returning to the old double standard: Your speech is violence, our violence is speech. Our protestors are heroes, your protestors are criminal insurrectionists.
Where does the author stand on THIS meaning of equality?
Thanks. I'm familiar with the line of argument. It's not very persuasive. It's like arguing against freedom because eventually people want their passions without any restraint. If we gave up every principle that gets abused or misunderstood, there would be nothing left.
And what's the alternative? Do you prefer NOT having equality before the law?
In my opinion, humanity has evolved a preference for individuals who appear to them to be similar to themselves. The more similar, the more they award default trust, the less similar, the less default trust.
This seems to be "in the blood", across time/place/culture, to varying degrees. But the general response is consistently the same.
Mankind may yet evolve beyond this innate tendency.
Now given this observation, think what happens in a multicultural society, which our betters tell us is good for all. It amounts to this: as multiculturalism increases, social mutual trust decreases. The reverse is true.
Again, we may get past this, but we're not there yet.
> Keep lying and demonstrating a very low IQ though
You sound insecure.
In any case, I suppose you have a better explanation for the synchronized stopping of the reported count across multiple states followed by statistically impossible jumps for Biden, the multiple cases of observers being tricked or kicked out of the counting room followed by the count resuming, in one case the counters literally covering the windows to keep the observers from seeing what's going on, the videos of counter feeding the same ballots multiple times through the machine, the multiple sworn eyewitness affidavits, the miscellaneous statistical irregularities, etc.
Of course, if you're anything like all the other fraud-deniers I've interacted with, you'll now proceed to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la I can't hear you". You NPCs are so predictable.
And you sound unintelligent. All these claims were brought in multiple frivolous lawsuits and every single one failed because not only is there no evidence that the election was fraudulent, there's abundant evidence to the contrary.
So, just... Stay salty that your cult leader lost I guess
It's also not possible to eliminate *all* inequality. For example, if we made everyone 100% equal in wealth, then other inequalities would matter more anyway, e.g. genetic inequality, sexual inequality, moral inequality, etc. Since humans will always be unequal in some way, it's futile to prioritize wealth and other forms of energy equality as a moral goal. https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/morality-FAQs#why-value-equality
"Some contend that this apocalyptic ideology has proliferated because of the decline of religious belief, the mind filling its spiritual void with the quixotic quest for racial and sexual equality."
Both religion and wokeism pray on the gullible; they are both ways to control people. The pursuit of truth is not the aim of either.
Typical Atheist Pseudointellectual nonsense. For the vast majority of human history science and philosophy was largely the endeavor of religious intellgensa. Even postmodern Atheist thinkers like Nietzsche and Derrida acknowledge Religion as the origin of Science and all fields centered around objective truth.
"For the vast majority of human history science and philosophy was largely the endeavor of religious intellgensa (sic)."
That is true. Unfortunately, they had no concern for reality...the truth. They presented their narrative and controlled it with an iron fist. Their goal was power and wealth, not knowledge.
"Typical Atheist Pseudointellectual nonsense."
If you ever contact me again, do not start with an ad hominem.
That's pure (post)modern nonsense. The discovery of truth actually was the main motive behind religious science, many saw it as holy in of itself.
It's actually Secular science and philosophy where we see a disregard for truth & objective reality. In fact, many Secular intellectuals (particularly of the postmodern type) go as far as to say that the very idea of truth & objectivity were myths invented by religion to give meaning and order to a universe where neither exists.
A myth is adopted by a group, and of this group a set of leaders emerge as a de facto priesthood. This priesthood establishes an orthodox dogma, and from that point the goal of the religion/belief system is defense of the dogma and expansion of the myth, both of which primary benefit the priesthood.
You're speaking of religious orthodoxy. I'm using the term in its general sense, as in "conventional".
You'll also note that my comment is metaphorical. It stands for *any* hierarchical organization. If there is no organization, there can be no orthodoxy.
"A myth is adopted by a group, and of this group a set of leaders emerge as a de facto priesthood."
We agree. However, the government functions according to the same policy. In fact, at one time, there was a battle royal between the clergy and the monarchy of who should get the mind and money of the proles. They finally decided there was enough for both.
You’re not an ‘average white person,’ Karlin. You’re an alien immigrant from Russia living in the U.S. pushing ‘Transhumanism’ among a small group of online eccentric and newfound ‘muscular Nietzschean liberalism.’ ‘The average white person’ in the United States wants a country with secure borders, not endless mass immigration along with ‘free trade.’ Most people want a sense of community and aren’t autistic ‘rugged individualists’ either.
"We need white racial collectivism not libertarian bs."
The trait of individualism within the White race is admirable because it produces excellent advancements in science, engineering, math, art, architecture, medicine, and quality of life, making Western Civilization the greatest. But when individualism facilitates White self-genocide, it is pathetic.
This is the fatal error of libertarianism and classical liberalism. The problem is we’re naturally collectivist and tribal animals. Rugged individualism is pure fantasy and didn’t even exist on the frontier. People exist in families, communities, and societies not as autistic lone wolves.
"The problem is we’re naturally collectivist and tribal animals."
This is true of the vast majority, but all advancements in civilization result from those few individualists. Without them, we would be living in caves.
"Without the larger community to nurture and protect them there wouldn’t be exceptional individuals. Such people aren’t created in a vacuum"
I agree that the community sometimes supplies a support group, but it is of lesser importance to humanity's ascent. The 'larger community' doesn't always 'nurture and protect them'; sometimes, they imprison and kill them. The overarching credit must go to those with exceptional positive traits.
"...we’re naturally collectivist and tribal animals."
This is generally correct and I think it's an evolved trait that's present in some more than others. Those requiring less collective participation would very often be the cultural expanders, extending the sphere of their cultures, while those with more collective tendencies would be the consolidators, gradually filling in the new spheres.
It seems pretty racist to say that black people can't think well enough to ever be represented in cognitively demanding positions. I'm not on board with that kind of rhetoric or logic.
Alternatively, we could try to think past the problem of group differences by constructing a society in which almost anyone, regardless of intelligence, who works hard and plays by the rules could realistically look forward to a rich and fulfilling life: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
Our goal should be to create a society to fit the human material that actually exists, not as we would wish it to be: in which government policies are guided by the principle that every citizen's happiness and well-being is equally important.
Were that to become the case, inequalities in talent and ability (whether genetic or not) would not be nearly so threatening to the less-favored among us, be they racial groups, ethnicities, or individuals.
"Some contend that this apocalyptic ideology has proliferated because of the decline of religious belief, the mind filling its spiritual void with the quixotic quest for racial and sexual equality. "
There is *very* much in this statement, Intuitively--to me, at least--the rabid adherence to the belief in natal equality against the ready evidence of one's eyes/ears, suggests a metaphysical explanation.
We are treated to an entire segment of the population making the job of external manipulators much easier, because this segment routinely gaslights *itself*.
One thing that comes to mind here is that we should really try to make more of an effort to visualize political coordinates as the three-pronged construct it really is (identitarian - liberal - leftist) as opposed to the very reductive liberal/left - right paradigm that conflates hard Wokeists with classical liberals and the consistent libertarians.
Wokeism is primary a thing of the collectivist Left, which is dumber than liberals, though somewhat smarter than right-wingers. In so far as the Right is the greater threat to civilization, one can conditionally sympathize with EHC liberals who enable or turn a blind eye to leftist Wokes acting as bulldogs of progress to repress rightist intransigency, though in fairness it's a complicated calculation since anti-HBD Wokeism also pushes back human enhancement timelines.
It dovetails with the extreme individualism and autism displayed by ‘classical liberals’ on many social issues as well as the absurd idea of unlimited individual freedom.
My only quibble with this essay is the first sentence. Equalitarianism didn't spread through college campuses and bureaucracies in the last five years. It has been dominant in academia since the 60s and in bureaucracies since the 80s. It took root in the intelligentsia in the 20s. What is true is that it only started to be widely apparent to a mass public in recent years. The reason why it is important to stress this historical timeline is that we in the West have deluded ourselves for too long - ever since WW2 - that there were two equally valid political perspectives....a 'Left' one and a 'Right' one. This was never true. The Leftist equalitarian perspective has always been bogus. We are now living with the consequences of indulging an intelligentsia mind-game that was always sooner or later destined to lead to the civilisational mess we're in now. Maybe it was ultimately unstoppable but calling things by their right names all those decades ago might have reined it in considerably. This is not just a five year, a ten year or even a twenty year old malaise and it's important to always be clear about that.
"...It has been dominant in academia since the 60s..."
Yes. I first saw it there when I started college in '65. It was extremely, reflexively, appealing to youthful exuberance and the desire to declare an identity independent of one's family.
The information presented here is very useful. The recommendation, not so much.
What does it mean to kill the seeds of equalitarianism? Maybe some things are better left to be inferred. Ok. But it would be helpful to spell out what the author is NOT suggesting.
To be specific, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wanted a political equality of natural rights, under the rule of law, which rejected the double standard of serfs vs. nobles in medieval Europe.
The woke Left is abandoning the rule of law and returning to the old double standard: Your speech is violence, our violence is speech. Our protestors are heroes, your protestors are criminal insurrectionists.
Where does the author stand on THIS meaning of equality?
As the late Sam Francis said, "Eventually people want their equality neat...."
Thanks. I'm familiar with the line of argument. It's not very persuasive. It's like arguing against freedom because eventually people want their passions without any restraint. If we gave up every principle that gets abused or misunderstood, there would be nothing left.
And what's the alternative? Do you prefer NOT having equality before the law?
Only in a fairly homogeneous and high-trust polity.
In my opinion, humanity has evolved a preference for individuals who appear to them to be similar to themselves. The more similar, the more they award default trust, the less similar, the less default trust.
This seems to be "in the blood", across time/place/culture, to varying degrees. But the general response is consistently the same.
Mankind may yet evolve beyond this innate tendency.
Now given this observation, think what happens in a multicultural society, which our betters tell us is good for all. It amounts to this: as multiculturalism increases, social mutual trust decreases. The reverse is true.
Again, we may get past this, but we're not there yet.
Oh, I like equality before the law, but most people aren't going to care.
I cannot speak for the author, but my take goes like this:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-achieving-equality-is-an-impossible
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-progress-and-upward-mobility
Lol, storming the Capitol as part of a coup to prevent the transfer of power following an election IS a criminal insurrection
Yes, what the Dems did in Virginia in 2018 or in Tennessee in 2023 or in many other capitols was an insurrection.
Thank you for admitting that the right-wing Americans who stormed the capitol on 6 January were committing an insurrection
Yes, that's exactly what that means.
You think Brandon has only stutter, doesn't you? Not because you believe, but because you don't understand.
You literally don't make sense. Learn to write and then come back
At best, my writing doesn't make sense. You potato skool, mayb?
C u, not gonna vandalize Aporia comment section anymore.
You are proving my point. In 2020, rioters firebombed the federal courthouse in Portland. Somehow you don’t regard that as a crime.
This is factual. I live in Portland.
But I wouldn't think it fits the term "Insurrection". It was simply a destructive riot. A *series* of them, nightly, lasting for months.
My impression was that outrage over then-current events was a fig leaf for disorderly conduct as a means of recreation.
'somehow you don't regard that as a crime'
-the guy who literally can't read and understand one single comment
You mean like certifying brazenly fraudulent election results? Which the protesters unfortunately ultimately failed to stop.
Not fraudulent at all. Keep lying and demonstrating a very low IQ though
> Keep lying and demonstrating a very low IQ though
You sound insecure.
In any case, I suppose you have a better explanation for the synchronized stopping of the reported count across multiple states followed by statistically impossible jumps for Biden, the multiple cases of observers being tricked or kicked out of the counting room followed by the count resuming, in one case the counters literally covering the windows to keep the observers from seeing what's going on, the videos of counter feeding the same ballots multiple times through the machine, the multiple sworn eyewitness affidavits, the miscellaneous statistical irregularities, etc.
Of course, if you're anything like all the other fraud-deniers I've interacted with, you'll now proceed to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la I can't hear you". You NPCs are so predictable.
And you sound unintelligent. All these claims were brought in multiple frivolous lawsuits and every single one failed because not only is there no evidence that the election was fraudulent, there's abundant evidence to the contrary.
So, just... Stay salty that your cult leader lost I guess
So "a-la-la I can't hear you" it is.
BTW, the lawsuits were dismissed on various legal technical grounds without even looking at the evidence.
It's also not possible to eliminate *all* inequality. For example, if we made everyone 100% equal in wealth, then other inequalities would matter more anyway, e.g. genetic inequality, sexual inequality, moral inequality, etc. Since humans will always be unequal in some way, it's futile to prioritize wealth and other forms of energy equality as a moral goal. https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/morality-FAQs#why-value-equality
What's more, if, after somehow making all wealth distribution equal, without constant readjustment, the inequality in wealth would soon reappear.
Some people are just very much better at making money than others, it's as simple as that, really.
"Some contend that this apocalyptic ideology has proliferated because of the decline of religious belief, the mind filling its spiritual void with the quixotic quest for racial and sexual equality."
Both religion and wokeism pray on the gullible; they are both ways to control people. The pursuit of truth is not the aim of either.
Typical Atheist Pseudointellectual nonsense. For the vast majority of human history science and philosophy was largely the endeavor of religious intellgensa. Even postmodern Atheist thinkers like Nietzsche and Derrida acknowledge Religion as the origin of Science and all fields centered around objective truth.
"For the vast majority of human history science and philosophy was largely the endeavor of religious intellgensa (sic)."
That is true. Unfortunately, they had no concern for reality...the truth. They presented their narrative and controlled it with an iron fist. Their goal was power and wealth, not knowledge.
"Typical Atheist Pseudointellectual nonsense."
If you ever contact me again, do not start with an ad hominem.
That's pure (post)modern nonsense. The discovery of truth actually was the main motive behind religious science, many saw it as holy in of itself.
It's actually Secular science and philosophy where we see a disregard for truth & objective reality. In fact, many Secular intellectuals (particularly of the postmodern type) go as far as to say that the very idea of truth & objectivity were myths invented by religion to give meaning and order to a universe where neither exists.
You are either trolling or extremely ignorant.
You're the ignorant one spewing Reddit Atheist nonsense
Thanks for getting back to me in a timely manner.
Right.
A myth is adopted by a group, and of this group a set of leaders emerge as a de facto priesthood. This priesthood establishes an orthodox dogma, and from that point the goal of the religion/belief system is defense of the dogma and expansion of the myth, both of which primary benefit the priesthood.
Orthodoxy is a Christian concept. The vast majority of Religions don't have Orthodoxies and most religions are not centered around beliefs and dogma.
You're speaking of religious orthodoxy. I'm using the term in its general sense, as in "conventional".
You'll also note that my comment is metaphorical. It stands for *any* hierarchical organization. If there is no organization, there can be no orthodoxy.
"A myth is adopted by a group, and of this group a set of leaders emerge as a de facto priesthood."
We agree. However, the government functions according to the same policy. In fact, at one time, there was a battle royal between the clergy and the monarchy of who should get the mind and money of the proles. They finally decided there was enough for both.
"However, the government functions according to the same policy."
I think the model is pretty much applicable to every power structure.
We need white racial collectivism not libertarian bs.
The average White person despises your views and has neither the inclination nor the intellectual acuity to comment on Aporia articles.
You’re not an ‘average white person,’ Karlin. You’re an alien immigrant from Russia living in the U.S. pushing ‘Transhumanism’ among a small group of online eccentric and newfound ‘muscular Nietzschean liberalism.’ ‘The average white person’ in the United States wants a country with secure borders, not endless mass immigration along with ‘free trade.’ Most people want a sense of community and aren’t autistic ‘rugged individualists’ either.
"We need white racial collectivism not libertarian bs."
The trait of individualism within the White race is admirable because it produces excellent advancements in science, engineering, math, art, architecture, medicine, and quality of life, making Western Civilization the greatest. But when individualism facilitates White self-genocide, it is pathetic.
Agreed about individualism in a culture.
Very little, and you get Japan: peaceful, stable, but static. Too much--well just look around the industrialized west currently.
Just right and you get Galileo, Columbus, and a steady stream of technology.
A balancing act; a trade-off.
Individualism needs to be balanced by communitarianism.
"Individualism needs to be balanced by communitarianism."
Agreed.
Yes. Communitarianism is the the duty part of the social contract, just as free expression is the liberty part.
I completely disagree. I dislike "woke" people because they talk too much about race. This is just the same mistake in the opposite direction
Just do away with the whole group dynamic and assess individuals instead. The real issue is collectivism.
This is the fatal error of libertarianism and classical liberalism. The problem is we’re naturally collectivist and tribal animals. Rugged individualism is pure fantasy and didn’t even exist on the frontier. People exist in families, communities, and societies not as autistic lone wolves.
"The problem is we’re naturally collectivist and tribal animals."
This is true of the vast majority, but all advancements in civilization result from those few individualists. Without them, we would be living in caves.
Without the larger community to nurture and protect them there wouldn’t be exceptional individuals. Such people aren’t created in a vacuum.
"Without the larger community to nurture and protect them there wouldn’t be exceptional individuals. Such people aren’t created in a vacuum"
I agree that the community sometimes supplies a support group, but it is of lesser importance to humanity's ascent. The 'larger community' doesn't always 'nurture and protect them'; sometimes, they imprison and kill them. The overarching credit must go to those with exceptional positive traits.
The individual doesn’t exist outside family, community, ethnicity. All individual identity is inseparable from these foundational roots.
"The individual doesn’t exist outside family, community, ethnicity."
It appears you are overstating a position. What is your point? What I said is accurate and supported by plenty of evidence.
Most geniuses themselves were not rugged individualists
"...we’re naturally collectivist and tribal animals."
This is generally correct and I think it's an evolved trait that's present in some more than others. Those requiring less collective participation would very often be the cultural expanders, extending the sphere of their cultures, while those with more collective tendencies would be the consolidators, gradually filling in the new spheres.
Exactly
It seems pretty racist to say that black people can't think well enough to ever be represented in cognitively demanding positions. I'm not on board with that kind of rhetoric or logic.
Alternatively, we could try to think past the problem of group differences by constructing a society in which almost anyone, regardless of intelligence, who works hard and plays by the rules could realistically look forward to a rich and fulfilling life: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
Our goal should be to create a society to fit the human material that actually exists, not as we would wish it to be: in which government policies are guided by the principle that every citizen's happiness and well-being is equally important.
Were that to become the case, inequalities in talent and ability (whether genetic or not) would not be nearly so threatening to the less-favored among us, be they racial groups, ethnicities, or individuals.
'Because sexes and races are different from each other and have SLIGHTLY different abilities, they will inevitably have disparate social outcomes.'
The myth of Human Equality is the worst, most disastrous lie ever told.
"Some contend that this apocalyptic ideology has proliferated because of the decline of religious belief, the mind filling its spiritual void with the quixotic quest for racial and sexual equality. "
There is *very* much in this statement, Intuitively--to me, at least--the rabid adherence to the belief in natal equality against the ready evidence of one's eyes/ears, suggests a metaphysical explanation.
We are treated to an entire segment of the population making the job of external manipulators much easier, because this segment routinely gaslights *itself*.
No outside agency needed here, folks.
Well, the notion that humans are blank slates who learn everything they know from the senses was one of the justifications for empiricism.
One thing that comes to mind here is that we should really try to make more of an effort to visualize political coordinates as the three-pronged construct it really is (identitarian - liberal - leftist) as opposed to the very reductive liberal/left - right paradigm that conflates hard Wokeists with classical liberals and the consistent libertarians.
Wokeism is primary a thing of the collectivist Left, which is dumber than liberals, though somewhat smarter than right-wingers. In so far as the Right is the greater threat to civilization, one can conditionally sympathize with EHC liberals who enable or turn a blind eye to leftist Wokes acting as bulldogs of progress to repress rightist intransigency, though in fairness it's a complicated calculation since anti-HBD Wokeism also pushes back human enhancement timelines.
It dovetails with the extreme individualism and autism displayed by ‘classical liberals’ on many social issues as well as the absurd idea of unlimited individual freedom.
You're free to your collectives racial or otherwise but keep them well away from me.
We need to just send you back to Russia.
‘Human enhancement.’ Hanania style, no doubt,