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.
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?
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 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?
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.
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.
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?
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 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?
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.
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.