The refusal to accept suffering as a part of life seems to factor into all this. A strange sensibility that life should be pain free or someone must be held responsible.
Exactly how I see it. It runs contrary to this existence being a realm for perfecting grace, developing our souls, etc. for the next reality (heaven). The cradle to grave ideal the woke culture is trying to achieve will fail spiritually because it runs counter to developing our souls through pain and consequence of free will (something a creator -God - will not permit). And, it will fail secularly since it also goes against material nature, which deplores a singularity (like cradle to grave accommodation) and loves/prefers competition and perfection through pain and consequence. Ultimately, the woke culture is simply the cultish manifestation of perpetual adolescence and a refusal of responsibility.
Yes, this world is for growth which means struggle. Woke culture seeks equality, which seems to be a noble goal but is impossible since diffences in capabilities, circumstances,etc. Will always exist. One can have compassion and respect for all but the only "equal" societies tend to be totalitarian.
That must be new, the notion that suffering can be avoided, a byproduct of modern psychology. I doubt, prior to our understanding of the human psyche, people would’ve concluded that suffering was avoidable and that the lessening of suffering was a good and proper goal.
Indian religions began teaching that suffering could be transcended thousands of years ago. E.g. read the 4 noble truths from Buddhism. Ancient Stoic philosophers thousands of years ago, such as Epicurus, also taught that suffering could be transcended.
It may be a foolish idea, but it has a good sales record.
Any thoughts on the idea that this toxic brew is being deliberately promoted by the establishment to divert and defuse any resistance to their economic and foreign policy agendas? In short, as a divide and conquer strategy? If so, it might work for a while. It seems to be doing the trick for the time being. In the long run, is it more likely to metastasize and threaten the stability of the whole system than to provide cover for their malfeasance?
Well, I think these ideas are always promoted deliberately, because those doing so think they are the right thing to do, not because they want destruction. The lessons of history are only for the Bad Guys. If it blows up in their face, they'll be shocked; or, more likely, blame someone else.
Thank you. I guess I would add that the ruling class believes it is the right thing to do AND it just happens to help push their economic and foreign policy agendas that have nothing all to do with this poisonous social ideology. A disguised (or semi-disguised) will-to-power. Hidden from themselves--in whole or in part-- by their own worldview. You are right, that when it fails they will blame anyone but themselves.
" Not because they want destruction". I want to believe , but I can't understand how educated leaders ignore the repeated results borne out by history . I suspect some destruction is expected to achieve results and remove roadblocks.
Thanks for this substack. I also jumped on as a result of Rod Dreher's blog, which is about the only thing I read these days. I'm a novelist in a very dry spell (stopped publishing about two years ago and stopped writing about five years ago although I am still plugging away at a manuscript) and I teach high school English three days a week. My fiction writing draws me to read widely and intensely and I am fascinated by the intersection of ideas with history and sociology, as well as the intersection of these with my religious tradition, Catholicism. I have had exposure to "Catholic prophecy" in its various manifestations and a few years ago I began to observe how this prophecy intersects with history and sociology.
So for me, I can't think about Communism without reference to the astonishing phenomenon of the prophecies and accompanying signs and wonders of Fatima in 1917 on the eve of the Communist Revolution. If you are not familiar with that occurrence (or if, like me, you assume you know about it but haven't read the source material), I encourage you to read up on it. My surmisal of "prophecy" in general is this: authentic prophecy interprets the present moment in a way that can usefully affect the future. It's a miraculously intuitive "if/then" statement that serves as a warning, very seldom as a safety net, whatever its adherents might initially claim.
So as I look at your trinity of bad ideas, my background draws me to wonder if there was anything given in those "Fatima prophecies" which would usefully counter these bad ideas. I am wondering, because on the face of it, I don't know. Of course, I can find out, and report back here if this might be interesting to you or your readers. If not, no worries: I am looking forward to reading more and to the discussion. I just happen to have "expertise" in this area, having been immersed in various faith communties throughout my professional life. Thanks again for your writing!
I do think you're on to something ! I can speak somewhat to the third prophecy, which concerned a great loss of faith across Europe and the betrayal of the the church by the hierarchy . Perhaps the adaptation of the ' terrible trinity " of ideas ( all about achieving the earthly utopia ) in lieu of striving for the Kingdom of Heaven was what the murderous 20th century was all about . One would have to abandon their religious faith , or in the case of a society , " secularize " it to achieve the earthly trinity of ideas . I think we can see this prophecy fulfilled in Europe and well on the way here .
I hope I'm not being obtuse. There's an idea I am trying to grasp and articulate as I read through these pieces. Here is my initial go at it: A few decades ago, Americans (still) had common reference points in popular culture by the shows they watched and then discussed. Along comes cable and subsequent developments and that common experience is gone. Now we are experiencing a paradoxical simultaneous atomization and collectivization, with increased attention to identity. But as divided as we are, many (most?) of us share a common portal: the smart phone. Has any other device ever held a similar position?
You are onto something, Greg, but you didn't go far enough. It's not just the smart phone: it's the apps within it. Social media is available to all, but the content in those apps is different for everyone, and only scarcely under the control of the user. The user may request not to see a certain Dick or Jane's posts, etc., but is ultimately served whatever that app's algorithms decide is "best," where "best" serves goals like "stay on the app as long as possible so you see as many ads as possible." Which leads to people getting served cheap-thrill outrage bait, which stimulates a market for outrage bait
Twitter is the worst of them by far. Primarily because all Twitter activity is public by default, including *who you follow*. Consequences of the public defaultness include (1) if you follow a "bad person" your holier-than-thou acquaintances can come after you for it; (2) if you make a "wrongthink" post it can blow up overnight (e.g. Justine Sacco); (3) if you refuse to join in a crusade against someone, all other users can see that you didn't do that, and make your life miserable over that, too.
Et cetera. Just think for a second how much *power* the enormous centralized social media companies have over *the very thoughts* that people think...
But there is a trinity of toxicity bubbling in the article, a potent mix of Hubris + Prejudice + Self-blindness, in a word, Bigotry.
Describing it as "perhaps the most spectacular victimhood complex of any state" is akin to a rapist telling his victim to stop crying and just get over it. Except that what happened was spectacularly far worse. A bully needs to take a walk in the victim's shoes before moralizing about it. He might discover repentance and reparation as the better way forward. That's only one example of the toxicity I refer to.
Alas no amount of elaboration will open eyes to see that what is truly upending the world today is not what's wrong with other people but our own closed minds. Closed minds that can't see the same flaws in ourselves which the other side sees, that disdain reaching out for better understanding out of awareness we aren't in the other's shoes, that prefer instead to put down the other by any means necessary.
“ Alas no amount of elaboration will open eyes to see that what is truly upending the world today is not what's wrong with other people but our own closed minds.”
So here you are telling everyone you have a closed mind? Or are you using the word “our” disingenuously?
Hi! I dont know if "victimhhood" is the correct concept to employ here. I would say that "scapegoating" is better. Scapegoating always refer to a unfair, unjust and unjustified hatred or violence. Victimhood, on the other hand, may be genuine and not lead to violence.
I'm rather late to this discussion, but I found it interesting as a tie-in to your insightful Religious Revolution post.
The main thing that strikes me here is that "equity" seems irrelevant to your analysis. It's not a unifying principle of historical dystopias: it only appears in a minority of your examples, and even then it's accompanied by disclaimers.
If it is relevant, I think it's probably best viewed as one of many possible manifestations of utopian thinking, rather than as a separate characteristic.
Late to the thread as I just discovered N. S. Lyons Upheaval.
To Mr. Lyons and Mr. Hermit,
"...not because they want destruction."
For good or bad destruction is the desired mechanism to eliminate whatever is seen as the problem(s). The challenge is to use 'destruction' as a tool without having it blow up in your face. History shows such approach is rarely successful resulting in many innocent casualties usually in the 10s of millions. So far it's only in the low millions in Xinjiang.
The refusal to accept suffering as a part of life seems to factor into all this. A strange sensibility that life should be pain free or someone must be held responsible.
Exactly how I see it. It runs contrary to this existence being a realm for perfecting grace, developing our souls, etc. for the next reality (heaven). The cradle to grave ideal the woke culture is trying to achieve will fail spiritually because it runs counter to developing our souls through pain and consequence of free will (something a creator -God - will not permit). And, it will fail secularly since it also goes against material nature, which deplores a singularity (like cradle to grave accommodation) and loves/prefers competition and perfection through pain and consequence. Ultimately, the woke culture is simply the cultish manifestation of perpetual adolescence and a refusal of responsibility.
Yes, this world is for growth which means struggle. Woke culture seeks equality, which seems to be a noble goal but is impossible since diffences in capabilities, circumstances,etc. Will always exist. One can have compassion and respect for all but the only "equal" societies tend to be totalitarian.
Muse Very solid explanation.
That must be new, the notion that suffering can be avoided, a byproduct of modern psychology. I doubt, prior to our understanding of the human psyche, people would’ve concluded that suffering was avoidable and that the lessening of suffering was a good and proper goal.
Indian religions began teaching that suffering could be transcended thousands of years ago. E.g. read the 4 noble truths from Buddhism. Ancient Stoic philosophers thousands of years ago, such as Epicurus, also taught that suffering could be transcended.
It may be a foolish idea, but it has a good sales record.
Any thoughts on the idea that this toxic brew is being deliberately promoted by the establishment to divert and defuse any resistance to their economic and foreign policy agendas? In short, as a divide and conquer strategy? If so, it might work for a while. It seems to be doing the trick for the time being. In the long run, is it more likely to metastasize and threaten the stability of the whole system than to provide cover for their malfeasance?
Well, I think these ideas are always promoted deliberately, because those doing so think they are the right thing to do, not because they want destruction. The lessons of history are only for the Bad Guys. If it blows up in their face, they'll be shocked; or, more likely, blame someone else.
Thank you. I guess I would add that the ruling class believes it is the right thing to do AND it just happens to help push their economic and foreign policy agendas that have nothing all to do with this poisonous social ideology. A disguised (or semi-disguised) will-to-power. Hidden from themselves--in whole or in part-- by their own worldview. You are right, that when it fails they will blame anyone but themselves.
" Not because they want destruction". I want to believe , but I can't understand how educated leaders ignore the repeated results borne out by history . I suspect some destruction is expected to achieve results and remove roadblocks.
TJ I’ve always thought the “lest we forget” of Remembrance Day ironic, we always forget.
Hi Lyons,
Thanks for this substack. I also jumped on as a result of Rod Dreher's blog, which is about the only thing I read these days. I'm a novelist in a very dry spell (stopped publishing about two years ago and stopped writing about five years ago although I am still plugging away at a manuscript) and I teach high school English three days a week. My fiction writing draws me to read widely and intensely and I am fascinated by the intersection of ideas with history and sociology, as well as the intersection of these with my religious tradition, Catholicism. I have had exposure to "Catholic prophecy" in its various manifestations and a few years ago I began to observe how this prophecy intersects with history and sociology.
So for me, I can't think about Communism without reference to the astonishing phenomenon of the prophecies and accompanying signs and wonders of Fatima in 1917 on the eve of the Communist Revolution. If you are not familiar with that occurrence (or if, like me, you assume you know about it but haven't read the source material), I encourage you to read up on it. My surmisal of "prophecy" in general is this: authentic prophecy interprets the present moment in a way that can usefully affect the future. It's a miraculously intuitive "if/then" statement that serves as a warning, very seldom as a safety net, whatever its adherents might initially claim.
So as I look at your trinity of bad ideas, my background draws me to wonder if there was anything given in those "Fatima prophecies" which would usefully counter these bad ideas. I am wondering, because on the face of it, I don't know. Of course, I can find out, and report back here if this might be interesting to you or your readers. If not, no worries: I am looking forward to reading more and to the discussion. I just happen to have "expertise" in this area, having been immersed in various faith communties throughout my professional life. Thanks again for your writing!
I do think you're on to something ! I can speak somewhat to the third prophecy, which concerned a great loss of faith across Europe and the betrayal of the the church by the hierarchy . Perhaps the adaptation of the ' terrible trinity " of ideas ( all about achieving the earthly utopia ) in lieu of striving for the Kingdom of Heaven was what the murderous 20th century was all about . One would have to abandon their religious faith , or in the case of a society , " secularize " it to achieve the earthly trinity of ideas . I think we can see this prophecy fulfilled in Europe and well on the way here .
I hope I'm not being obtuse. There's an idea I am trying to grasp and articulate as I read through these pieces. Here is my initial go at it: A few decades ago, Americans (still) had common reference points in popular culture by the shows they watched and then discussed. Along comes cable and subsequent developments and that common experience is gone. Now we are experiencing a paradoxical simultaneous atomization and collectivization, with increased attention to identity. But as divided as we are, many (most?) of us share a common portal: the smart phone. Has any other device ever held a similar position?
You are onto something, Greg, but you didn't go far enough. It's not just the smart phone: it's the apps within it. Social media is available to all, but the content in those apps is different for everyone, and only scarcely under the control of the user. The user may request not to see a certain Dick or Jane's posts, etc., but is ultimately served whatever that app's algorithms decide is "best," where "best" serves goals like "stay on the app as long as possible so you see as many ads as possible." Which leads to people getting served cheap-thrill outrage bait, which stimulates a market for outrage bait
Twitter is the worst of them by far. Primarily because all Twitter activity is public by default, including *who you follow*. Consequences of the public defaultness include (1) if you follow a "bad person" your holier-than-thou acquaintances can come after you for it; (2) if you make a "wrongthink" post it can blow up overnight (e.g. Justine Sacco); (3) if you refuse to join in a crusade against someone, all other users can see that you didn't do that, and make your life miserable over that, too.
Et cetera. Just think for a second how much *power* the enormous centralized social media companies have over *the very thoughts* that people think...
Excellent point. I don't own/use a smartphone, so my ignorance shows through! I got off all social media because it did not encourage the best me.
Solid Greg.
I apologize for being blunt.
But there is a trinity of toxicity bubbling in the article, a potent mix of Hubris + Prejudice + Self-blindness, in a word, Bigotry.
Describing it as "perhaps the most spectacular victimhood complex of any state" is akin to a rapist telling his victim to stop crying and just get over it. Except that what happened was spectacularly far worse. A bully needs to take a walk in the victim's shoes before moralizing about it. He might discover repentance and reparation as the better way forward. That's only one example of the toxicity I refer to.
Alas no amount of elaboration will open eyes to see that what is truly upending the world today is not what's wrong with other people but our own closed minds. Closed minds that can't see the same flaws in ourselves which the other side sees, that disdain reaching out for better understanding out of awareness we aren't in the other's shoes, that prefer instead to put down the other by any means necessary.
That feels like Gnosticism.
“ Alas no amount of elaboration will open eyes to see that what is truly upending the world today is not what's wrong with other people but our own closed minds.”
So here you are telling everyone you have a closed mind? Or are you using the word “our” disingenuously?
Hi! I dont know if "victimhhood" is the correct concept to employ here. I would say that "scapegoating" is better. Scapegoating always refer to a unfair, unjust and unjustified hatred or violence. Victimhood, on the other hand, may be genuine and not lead to violence.
I can’t thank you enough for the clarity of analysis you provide in your essays.
I'm rather late to this discussion, but I found it interesting as a tie-in to your insightful Religious Revolution post.
The main thing that strikes me here is that "equity" seems irrelevant to your analysis. It's not a unifying principle of historical dystopias: it only appears in a minority of your examples, and even then it's accompanied by disclaimers.
If it is relevant, I think it's probably best viewed as one of many possible manifestations of utopian thinking, rather than as a separate characteristic.
Request for comparison: norms + individuality + impotence/victimhood https://swellandcut.com/2018/11/25/the-toxic-triangle-of-modernity/
Late to the thread as I just discovered N. S. Lyons Upheaval.
To Mr. Lyons and Mr. Hermit,
"...not because they want destruction."
For good or bad destruction is the desired mechanism to eliminate whatever is seen as the problem(s). The challenge is to use 'destruction' as a tool without having it blow up in your face. History shows such approach is rarely successful resulting in many innocent casualties usually in the 10s of millions. So far it's only in the low millions in Xinjiang.