Subscriber Community Thread (#10)

Comrade Elon; letter from a non-person; the New Imperium reaches Iceland; lazy lumpenbourgeoisie; rich Oxford religious cults and the end of the world

Welcome back to the monthly Upheaval Subscriber Community Thread: always on a different date and time to keep you on your toes.

I don’t have much to update you about here up top this time, other than that the planned essay on Lewis/Tolkien was slightly delayed due to a) my over-ambition making it more complicated than expected, and b) being very nicely asked to contribute something to a print magazine but then having to actually make a deadline. It’s on its way though.

After that I’m itching to turn back to a couple of China-related topics for a bit (though the long-requested Part 3 of the China series will likely wait until after China’s momentous 20th Party Congress this fall is over and we know more about what the next five years of Chinese politics might bring).

Anyway, as usual, here are a few suggestions, excerpts, and comments for you on some of the most interesting things I’ve read recently (as always please leave your own suggestions in the comments!):

---

Elon Musk, “Believing in technology for a better future” (China Cyberspace) [via the Beijing Channel Substack]

Have you read Elon Musk’s latest article in the Chinese Communist Party journal China Cyberspace (中国网信) yet? Oh, did you miss that one? Here you go, have a few excerpts:

很高兴能与中国朋友分享我对科技与人类愿景的一些思考…

I am pleased to share with my Chinese friends some of my thoughts on the vision of technology and humanity…

…

可以预见，借助机器人的力量，我们将创造一个商品和服务极度充裕的时代，人人都能过上富足的生活。或许，未来唯一存在的稀缺，是我们作为人类来创造我们自己。

It is foreseeable that with the power of robots, we will create an era of extreme abundance of goods and services, where everyone can live a life of abundance. Perhaps the only scarcity that will exist in the future is for us to create ourselves as humans.

…

实现这一目标需要机器人进化得足够智能以及具备大规模生产机器人的能力。我们生产的“四轮机器人”——汽车，改变了人们的出行乃至生活方式。而当有一个天我们解决了汽车的自动驾驶问题（即现实世界的人工智能问题）后，就可以将人工智能技术推广到人形机器人身上，这将比汽车具有更广阔的应用前景。

Achieving this goal requires that robots evolve to be smart enough and for us to have the ability to mass produce robots. Our "four-wheeled robots" - cars - have changed the way people travel and even live. One day when we solve the problem of self-driving cars (i.e., real-world artificial intelligence), we will be able to extend artificial intelligence technology to humanoid robots, which will have a much broader application than cars.

…

我们计划在今年推出首个人形机器人的原型机，并着力提升该机器人智能化程度，解决规模化生产难题。此后，随着生产规模扩大和成本下降，人形机器人的实用性将逐年提升。

We plan to launch the first prototype of a humanoid robot this year and focus on improving the intelligence of that robot and solving the problem of large-scale production.

…

随着科技改变生活的进程不断加速，世界发展日新月异，生活不仅仅是简单地解决一个又一个问题。我们都希望能在早晨醒来时满心期待着未来，为即将发生的事情欢欣鼓舞。我希望能有更多人和我们一起，为加速世界向可持续能源的转变而奋斗。我也欢迎而更多志同道合的中国伙伴和我们一起，投身于清洁能源、人工智能、人机协同乃至太空领域的探索，共同创造值得期待的明天。

As technology continues to change lives at an accelerating pace and the world evolves, life is more than simply solving one problem after another. We all want to wake up in the morning full of anticipation for the future and rejoice in what is to come. I hope more people will join us in our fight to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy. I also welcome more like-minded Chinese partners to join us in exploring clean energy, artificial intelligence, human-machine collaboration, and space exploration to create a future worth waiting for.

Ok Elon, that was a bit weird, I have to say. Just because, well, China Cyberspace is a publication of the Cyberspace Administration of China, whose mission is to build up Chinese “national cyber power,” and they may have different ideas about how to use your robot army and brain chip technology than you anticipate. But I understand… a man must do what a man must to sell some Teslas, including touting the benefits of fully-automated luxury communism to the commies.

Xu Zhangrun, “From My Anguished Heart—A Letter to My Daughter,” as translated by Geremie R. Barmé (ChinaFile)

This is an excerpt from a deeply powerful essay by Xu Zhangrun, a Chinese professor whose criticisms of President Xi Jinping got him cancelled CCP style: falsely accused of “soliciting prostitutes” (the government’s favorite charge to foist on troublemakers) and briefly detained, then fired from his prestigious position at Tsinghua University, stripped of his pension and insurance, stripped of his accreditation so that he could no longer work anywhere, evicted from his apartment, and prevented from receiving donations. He wrote this letter to his daughter, who was about to return from Australia, as a warning about what life in China would be like for her:

Si’er, my beloved daughter:

I am writing to you on the eve of your return to China. Although joyful at the prospect of your coming home, my happiness is overshadowed by despondence.

…

The years have passed in the blink of an eye. Now, you will soon be a university lecturer and I’m bursting with pride.

Yet, as I’ve told you, I’m also wary; it’s no longer a vague or abstract parental concern. My heart is racked by guilt and an agony that is gnawing away at me. That’s because of what has happened since I dared speak up two years ago [when I published “Imminent Fears, Immediate Hopes” in July 2018]. During my recent detention, Tsinghua University fired me and stripped me of my teaching accreditation, so now I’m both unemployed and, for all intents and purposes, a “non-person.” It’s inevitable that my status could well affect you. I’m convinced that disaster looms, no matter how often the authorities reassure me that you won’t be penalized because of me.

The 20th century taught us all that they can’t be trusted under any circumstances. You’d have a better chance if you believed the Devil himself than trust anything that they tell you. Tens of millions of lives destroyed and legions of unrequited souls grieving in the wilderness speak a truth that is beyond words.

How could I not be agonizing over your return?

In the first place, the authorities probably already have your computer and mobile phone, including, of course, your WeChat account, under constant surveillance. They’ve probably compiled a detailed dossier as well—everything from what you’ve said and done while overseas, whom you’ve encountered, whom you plan to meet with, right up to and including the details of conversations on certain topics, the things you’ve taken an interest in, even what films you’ve been going to, or what you’ve published. They’ll pretty much have scoped out what you’re thinking today and what you’re planning to do tomorrow.

I can’t pretend that I have any particular insight into their precise modus operandi, let alone that I’m familiar with the routines of their undercover agents, but there’s one thing that I know for sure—it’s something that everyone in China is familiar with—Big Brother knows everything about you. Big Brother is not only omnipotent, he takes a particular pleasure in his work. People in the system get a kick out of every covert operation, they savor the pungent smell of blood of each kill, and they are emboldened by every success. To their insensate and cunning minds we are nothing more than statistics, corporeal digits to be manipulated and abused at will. Their power reinforces their belief that [as it says in Corinthians 6:12]: “All things are lawful for me.” Every unbridled action they take and each measure of satisfaction they extract from it further diminishes what little remains of their humanity.

I know for a fact that they’ve already collected information on your life in Sydney. You see, when they interrogated me the day after I was released from detention—at 4:00 p.m. on July 11, 2020, to be precise—they mentioned you specifically; they hinted that they knew everything about you, even though you’ve been living in another country for years, my beloved daughter! A country where, under normal circumstances, you would never imagine there were operatives of China’s SS. Why are they doing all of this? What are they planning? It’s simply because you’re my daughter. Dearest Si’er, you will suffer for my original sin. Your father has brought a calamity down upon you.

Then, once you’re back here in China and go to report to your new job, or even before then, it’s inevitable that they will approach you “for a chat.” They’ll say it’s because the powers that be want to “express their solicitude” for you. During the ensuing conversation, they will either make a point of directly asking about or simply inquire in passing what you think about your father. In particular, they’ll want to know what you think about what your father thinks. Depending on how you react, they’ll follow a time-honored logic and probe further, extrapolating and surmising in the process until, before you know it, you’ll have been issued with a stern warning.

Naturally, all of it will be couched in faux-sympathetic terms: They’ll claim that they only want to understand your circumstances so they can better support what is in your best interest. Nonetheless, they will make it quite clear that your life is in their hands. In reality, their display of casual magnanimity reflects an arrogance that masks a deadly potential.

As the conversation proceeds they’ll trot out all the tired old clichés: We appreciate all too well that father and daughter are two different people and that he’s responsible for who he is, just as you are for who you are. You will surely be familiar with our official policy, as it is quite specific: While the state is ever-mindful of an individual’s family background, what really matters is how you act yourself. We encourage you to understand your father’s case in the broader context and to be mindful of developing the correct attitude regardless of any familial bond you may feel. Relax, they’ll tell you, no pressure, just do the very best you can. No matter what they say, the core message is that you’re guilty and that, henceforth, you must live in submission; compliance is obligatory.

…

Once you start your job, “friendly conversations” with the authorities will be a regular feature of your life. Let me illustrate on the basis of my own experience: There’s one cop at my local police station who clearly relishes the power that he has over me. Semi-literate at best, he enjoys upbraiding me for my ideological backwardness and he pontificates about my moral turpitude. If that’s how I’m being treated, you can imagine how they might deal with you. Remember, they are capable of anything; in pursuit of their ends they feel absolutely no compunction or moral restraint. People like them simply have no sense of right or wrong; it’s not because there is no justice in the world, it’s because people like them simply don’t care. They have long ago banished all sense of moral decency.

There’s a line in the Book of Documents: “I have heard that the good man, doing good, finds the day insufficient; and that the evil man, doing evil, also finds the day insufficient.” Believe me when I say, there’s simply no limit to their perfidy! I know your sweet personality all too well and I’m worried that after just a few “heart-to-heart conversations” like that they may be able to break down your resistance. They’ll reduce you to living in a constant state of anxiety, and you will feel as though your actions are circumscribed in every direction. You may well sense that you are enveloped in an all-encompassing and nameless terror; you’ll feel impotent at the thought of the omnipresent surveillance; the realization that there’s no way out will be heartbreaking. Not only will you be weighed down psychologically, your ability to function normally and enjoy life will be severely compromised. Your existence will be like an endless test, the aim of which is nothing more than survival. That’s why, my dearest daughter, if you are back here in our homeland we will become one another’s hostages. We’ll be obliged to obey and our kidnappers will revel in their villainy.

Henceforth you’ll live in a state of constant vigilance; you’ll be on guard regardless of whether you’re just teaching a class or taking part in a meeting. One ill-considered remark or some minor issue in your everyday life could invite some new disaster. If it were anybody else they might be willing to overlook it, but because it’s you—my daughter—the odds are that it’ll become an issue. Even a minor thing can snowball into a serious problem. Remember, in a world ruled by what Isaiah Berlin called “the artificial dialectic,” laws, be they manmade or natural, count for naught.

Human sentiment is quite malleable, and cold indifference can all too readily replace the warm intimacies of the past. It’s more than likely that, from now on, acquaintances will keep you at arm’s length and young men may even be reluctant to date you. Professionally, things like applications to attend international conferences will most probably be denied. As to other academic opportunities, such as professional advancement and promotion, these too will be beyond your reach. None of this, however, will unfold in an overt fashion; it will be made to seem as though these petty obstacles are simply a matter of course, and they will be as inevitable as they are inescapable. Over time, you will be reduced to a state of mute frustration.

Of course, they’ll pretend as though none of this is because of me; nothing will be traceable back to my case. Over time, however, the repeated coincidences will be quite remarkable and everyone will know what’s afoot without a word having to be said.

…

I’m telling you all of this, my dearest daughter, because I don’t want to keep anything from you and, at this moment, I need to let you know that, no matter what I’ve said here, the decision of what to do is yours alone. If you feel at a loss, then may I suggest that you follow your intuition and seek prayerful guidance from the Heavens. If neither instinct nor the Heavens offer solace, and only if you really want to, perhaps you’ll let me know and allow me to suggest a course of action. This is all that I can offer you now and it doesn’t matter how you use my advice. For better or worse, you will have to live with the consequences of whatever decision you make.

She never replied and he hasn’t heard from her since. Read the whole thing, and you will understand a little better what living under totalitarianism is like. And if you want more of the best such things out of China, follow the Sinologist Geremie Barmé’s work at China Heritage. His translation work is unmatched in the world, and frankly invaluable.

Christopher Mott, “Woke Imperium: The Coming Confluence Between Social Justice and Neoconservatism” (The Institute for Peace & Diplomacy)

From the executive summary of a 22-page report published by a Canadian think tank:

• The advocates of American primacy within the United States foreign policy establishment historically rely on prevailing ideological trends of the time to justify interventionism abroad. The new ‘woke’ face of American hegemony and projects of empire is designed to project the U.S. as an international moral police rather than a conventional great power—and the result is neo-imperialism with a moral face.

• This is an iterative and systemic process with an internal logic, not one controlled by a global cabal: when the older rationalizations for primacy, hegemony, and interventionism appear antiquated or are no longer persuasive, a new rationale that better reflects the ruling class norms of the era is adopted as a substitute. This is because the new schema is useful for the maintenance of the existing system of power.

• The rise of a ‘woke’ activist-driven, social justice-oriented politics—particularly among the members of academia, media, and the professional managerial class—has provided the latest ideological justification for interventionism, and it has become readily adopted by the U.S. foreign policy establishment. These groups now have an even greater level of symbiotic relationship with state actors.

• Professional selection and advancement under these conditions require elite signaling of loyalty to ‘progressive’ universalism as the trending state-sanctioned ideology, which further fuels the push towards interventionism. This combination of factors encourages a new institutional and elite consensus around trending shibboleths.

• The emerging hegemonic posture and its moral imperialism are at odds with a sober and realistic appraisal of U.S. interests on the world stage, as they create untenable, maximalist, and utopian goals that clash with the concrete realities on which U.S. grand strategy must be based.

• The liberal Atlanticist tendency to push moralism and social engineering globally has immense potential to create backlash in foreign, especially non-Western, societies that will come to identify the West as a whole with niche, late-modern progressive ideals—thus motivating new forms of anti-Westernism.

I’m glad some people other than myself are finally starting to talk seriously about this phenomenon.

David Gunnlaugsson, “There is nowhere to hide from the culture wars” (Spiked)

If we ever want to achieve any progress on the big issues – from the economy to health to education – then the culture wars must be fought and won.

If anything, the term culture war does not capture the gravity of what we are facing right now. It is a woke onslaught, a cultural insurrection. And it is affecting and damaging every aspect of political and social life today. It even threatens democracy itself.

For years politicians have been outsourcing their decision-making to experts, ‘independent’ committees, NGOs and many others. In some ways this is nothing new. But it has been getting steadily worse over recent years. And it has allowed woke activist groups to greatly increase their influence.

In Iceland, for example, ministries routinely seek guidance on legislation from pressure groups. Sometimes they even allow these groups to draw up whole bills. In recent years, activists have even been hired to work in the ministries directly. And so the woke sit at both sides of the table.

And then there are the bureaucracies themselves. Many civil servants working for Western government bodies share the same woke metropolitan outlook. This also keeps the politicians in line. So, when a minister wants to implement a measure that does not chime with the values of the woke, the minister will not only be made aware of any legal and practical difficulties that the measure may encounter – he or she will also be told that carefully selected ‘stakeholders’ will need to be consulted for their input.

…

So voters and politicians need to take the woke insurrection seriously. It shapes every issue that affects our lives. And above all, it limits our ability to exercise democratic control over how our countries are governed.

This warning about Iceland rapidly succumbing to the (American) ideological invasion would be less notable if the author David Gunnlaugsson wasn’t Prime Minister of the country only a few years ago (2013-2016).

Leighton Woodhouse, “The Lumpenbourgeoisie: The price we pay for elite overproduction” (Substack)

The business model is simple: extortion. The non-profit world’s moral technicians scan the landscape for organizations, whether public or private, that can afford their services, diagnose them as acutely infected by some form of structural oppression or another, and then offer up their suite of services to set them on their public path to healing and redemption. As Malcom Kyeyune has noted, the ideology of wokeness operates like a political protection racket, insinuating its practitioners into every industry and enterprise as intermediaries between creators and their creations. You can run your company, you can write your screenplay, you can draft your bill, you can bring your product to market — but not without bringing in an outside team of minders to ensure that it conforms to the ideological standards of the moral intelligentsia, for a hefty fee. For a class devoid of any discernible skills of actual economic value, this parasitical function is an enviable source of political and social power.

“Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” consulting jobs have thus metastasized into a global, multi-billion dollar industry. That industry has become not only a life raft for otherwise employment-challenged college graduates, but a job-producing juggernaut that can sustain the credentialed class indefinitely, whatever happens to the real economy.

The DEI confidence game faces little resistance from its marks because, as corporate America has found, the demands these consultant-activists put on their targets as penance for their misdeeds are hardly onerous; indeed, they’re barely unwelcome. They usually come down to hiring an overpriced DEI consulting shop to run mandatory trainings in racial sensitivity and unconscious bias for the company’s hapless employees and to write new procedures and policies to oversee how those workers relate to clients, customers, and one another in any area proximate to race or any other intersectional identity. In other words, the price corporations pay for their moral missteps is to be handed new tools of discipline and control over their workforces. It’s an arrangement that works out almost as well for the bosses as it does for the consultants, while the workers, as usual, get squeezed.

In the aggregate, the deal that the lumpenbourgeoisie has struck with the capitalists amounts to the equivalent of a small tax on corporate America to keep the college-educated class gainfully employed — and to forestall the political instability that tends to ensue when a segment of the elite is denied the fulfillment of its aspirations. As a bonus, those corporations get to look virtuous to their college-educated employees and, for certain companies, to their largely college-educated consumer base. It’s a pretty good deal for the elite all around. The only downside is that it’s making the entire world insane.

Gideon Lewis-Kraus, “The Reluctant Prophet of Effective Altruism” (The New Yorker)

This is a very long, rather good essay on Effective Altruism, a very rich and influential young religious extremist cult for wealthy secular intellectuals native to San Francisco and Oxford:

It does, in any case, seem convenient that a group of moral philosophers and computer scientists happened to conclude that the people most likely to safeguard humanity’s future are moral philosophers and computer scientists. The movement had prided itself on its resolute secularism, but longtermist dread recalled the verse in the Book of Revelation that warns of a time when the stars will fall from the sky like unripe figs. Rob Reich, the Stanford political scientist, who once sat on the board of GiveWell, told me, “They are the secular apocalypticists of our age, not much different than Savonarola—the world is ending and we need a radical break with our previous practices.”…

…

Longtermism also led to some bizarre conclusions. Depending on the probabilities one attaches to this or that outcome, something like a .0001-per-cent reduction in over-all existential risk might be worth more than the effort to save a billion people today. (In the literature, this argument is called “fanaticism,” and, though it remains a subject of lively scholastic debate in E.A. circles, nobody openly endorses it.) Referring to such regrettable episodes as all previous epidemics and wars, Nick Bostrom once wrote, “Tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things—from the perspective of humankind as a whole—even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the sea of life.” Nick Beckstead, the philosopher at the helm of the Future Fund, remarked in his 2013 dissertation, “Richer countries have substantially more innovation, and their workers are much more economically productive. By ordinary standards—at least by ordinary enlightened humanitarian standards—saving and improving lives in rich countries is about equally as important as saving and improving lives in poor countries, provided lives are improved by roughly comparable amounts. But it now seems more plausible to me that saving a life in a rich country is substantially more important than saving a life in a poor country.”

Honestly I think the author goes too easy on them (maybe I’ll to write about the hugely dangerous consequences of their version of utopian morality-by-spreadsheet anther time), but he does often manage to capture their essence with some subtle evisceration:

One sweltering afternoon, MacAskill and I went for a walk in the Berkeley hills. What had begun as a set of techniques and approaches had become an identity, and what was once a diffuse coalition had hardened into a powerful but fractious constituency; the burden of leadership fell heavily on his shoulders… We passed People’s Park, which had become a tent city, but his eyes flicked toward the horizon. “Sometimes, as I think about what I’m going to do after the book comes out, I think, I have a job as the intellectual face of this broader movement, and sometimes I just want to be an independent pair of eyes on the world.”