Once you capture morality, you win the most crucial battle and all else follows from there.
Social Justice (a secular Christian heresy w Christian morals infused by statism and egalitarian utopianism) is the official state religion of the global corporate state, of the owners and operators of the Anglosphere, and of every educated striver under age 30.
We are living through a mass conversion of an Empire similar to the Roman conversion to Christianity (w both revolts based more or less on the moral power and demands of sacred victims and martyrs), and this is our new reality, despite how hard it is for those of us raised in 20th-century America to face and accept this.
Christianity did not succeed purely by human endeavor. There is no Holy Spirit driving wokeness. If any spirit is driving it all, it is not one destined to win.
Social justice is neither a religion nor a heresy. It’s justice within society, not just between individuals. It’s doing right by both individuals and groups where they live, in society. Why this need to dismiss that because you don’t agree with somebody else’s opinions? That’s like banning the ugly parts of America’s history of race by dismissing them as “critical race theory.” Seems to me these are just more ways to live by lies.
"It’s justice within society, not just between individuals."
I'm not sure this has ever taken place, can ever take place, and modern history shows that once groups claim to be the embodiment of "Justice" they usually commit atrocities or at least revoke civil liberties. I would refer you to Thomas Sowell, who makes this argument much better than I ever could.
"It’s doing right by both individuals and groups where they live, in society."
This is the purpose of all discourse and politics, and the opponents of Soc Just (or any ideology) would make the same claim. There is no group or leader ever who didn't claim they were "doing right by both individuals and groups."
"Why this need to dismiss that because you don’t agree with somebody else’s opinions?"
I don't just dismiss Soc Just because of disagreement (and I would never argue against any policy that actually worked to ameliorate misery), I dismiss Soc Justice because it is illiberal, intolerant, dogmatic and blatantly opposed to free speech, thought and expression.
I honestly believe, after decades of study (I was introduced to Crit Theory in college in the 1980s!), that all forms of Leftism use the suffering of the marginalized (or the proletariat) as a pretext to gain power, while the driving force of these movements is always first and foremost meeting the political, social, economic and psychological needs of the vanguard class who craft the ideology, who are usually disaffected secular intellectuals. I would refer you to Eric Hoffer, who makes this argument much better than I ever could.
You are free to disagree with me, and free to think I'm stupid or cruel etc, but I promise you, I am not lying.
I was going to do a PS apologizing if what I’d written sounded harsh and explaining that I was merely tired of social justice, a necessary principle and ideal, being dismissed as ideology. But then you said << I dismiss Soc Justice because it is illiberal, intolerant, dogmatic and blatantly opposed to free speech, thought and expression.>> So as Ronald Reagan might put it, “There you go again.”
I assume you’re talking about some form of liberalism or even socialism, Marxism, what-have-you. But social justice doesn’t belong to any political ideology; it’s a moral principle. Human life on earth would be doomed to a constant round of misery — as I realize some forms of Christianity more or less think it is, though not mine (Catholicism) — if we didn’t strive for social, as well as personal, familial, etc., justice. Looking back on history, I certainly do believe we’ve made great strides in that direction. As we should.
Maybe we're just quibbling over the difference bw "social justice" (a vague yet sweet-sounding phrase few could oppose) and Social Justice, the ideology that also includes Gender Theory, Queer Theory, Antiracism, etc?
"Human life on earth would be doomed to a constant round of misery...if we didn’t strive for social, as well as personal, familial, etc., justice."
I appreciate your words and the sentiment behind them, but just about every word in the back half of your phrasing is open to interpretation, which is the essence of discourse and politics (we have to accept that we all see and define these things differently), and in the case of Social Justice the ideology seems to create as much misery as it solves.
I try to stick w the Tao and just practice simple benevolence, I leave social crusades and "changing the world" to others.
I was comparing equating (and thereby dismissing) social justice with various forms of ideology (leftism, socialism, Marxism, Communism, etc.) with equating the teaching of black American history that’s critical and looks at various systemic forms of racism with “critical race theory,” which over 20 states have done. That I do think is another way of living by lies, which isn’t necessarily telling lies, just not allowing yourself to take in the whole truth.
There are those who’ve been involved in banning black history courses I would accuse of directly lying, at least to themselves, e.g., those Floridian “educators” who claim American slavery had its positive side, e.g., in teaching slaves so many useful skills (!).
I’m afraid we’re at the point in our dwindling American Church that some good ol’ fashioned communist totalitarianism may be the spark needed to relight the flame. Might actually listen to the words while singing hymns in prison.
Wokeness posits a moral order built around levels of group oppression (intersectionality). It's absurd. It's dangerous. It's totally antithetical to individual human rights. But it's growing because it serves a purpose, filling the moral void left by the Enlightenment's privatization of religion and morality. The Right is trying (Deneen's Regime Change is an attempt, as is Amari's integralism) to follow the same road without much success.
I disagree that they will win long-term. Like communism, wokeness is built on a false view of man, and therefore, it will implode. But also like Communism, systems of un-reality can last a very long time and destroy a great many lives before they fail.
There's something very similar in *No Man Is an Island*: "Sin is the will to do what God does not will, to know what He does not know, to love what He does not love."
Sorry, but I read that a long time ago in one of Merton's writings (I don't remember which one), it was not someone else's quote of him. I've used it in my Sunday School classes.
M. Scott Peck (who was a bit of a kook) wrote of his exorcism experiences that "Satan is a real spirit of unreality" which also echoes the idea.
Wokeness will dissolve when the corporate interests that support it realize that their bottom line is awash in red ink, but like others have stated, the effects will linger for generations.
I think you (and all of us) need a definition of "woke". If you just mean "social liberalism" you are probably right (if not necessarily on every particular issue). But on other matters I don't think the the Free Traders or the Open Borders folks will win. Nor are Americans (including many rather liberal and many non-white people people) going to tolerate high levels of crime and disorder-- we're already seeing overly permissive DAs getting tossed out of office. And the intolerant cancelers will not won-- huge numbers of people won't put up with that-- American are at heart libertarian (small "l") in attitude. Though I am assuming that nothing catastrophic upends things: no massive natural disaster, no high casualty act of war (e.g., with nukes) on American soil, no serious attempt by the crazypants Right to pull off a coup and overthrow the Constitution (Jan 6 was not a serious attempt). In both Eastern Europe and East Asia Communism only came to power because of the huge disruption of WWII and the active support of the Soviets (and the Red Army in Europe). And in Russia itself it took the upheaval of WWI and the fall of the tsarist regime to open the door for Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
Well, I'm a bit more optimistic as I do think there are viable deals that can be cut on immigration. Trump almost had one back in 2017 but he let himself be derailed by Ann Coulter's hissy fit. Trump's defects aside, one big problem we have these days is the unwillingness of too many people to do the hard work of compromise and horse trading and half-loaf dickering. Insisting on "my way or the high way" is what allows disorder to flourish.
Let me gloss that. It's uninhabitable if you, e.g., have to take a subway train to work. In fairness, I used to see Gail Collins on the Number One train all the time.
The woke left only wins when people cower, shut up, and run and hide.
Had a conversation last week with a local teacher about the school system not allowing Muslim parents to opt their kids out of LGBT material in the classroom. Of course, he was all for the no-opt-out policy, because of LGBT über alles.
But then I pointed out a little thing called the First Amendment, and that there's a case to be made for the government infringing on the families' religious rights. I pointed out that the school system makes accommodations all the time: for example, for students with ethical objections to dissecting frogs, or to tons of policies that give pseudo-"transgender" kids special privileges. I also pointed out that much of this material wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in our liberal county if it hadn't been wrapped in nonstop "Pride" celebrations and "trans" policies that involve keeping secrets from parents.
I also pointed out that when the entire school system and its team of lawyers and bureaucrats is arrayed against a few dissenting families who aren't telling the school system or fellow students what they can or can't do (unlike "trans" accommodation), then my teacher friend is taking the side of power against the little guy. Then I added that it's even worse because in this case, secular white progressives are trying to impose their will on brown-skinned minorities. Why, some of them are almost certainly immigrants. How is it "diversity" to have white progressives telling everyone that there's one way to do things and one way to feel?
I closed by pointing out that this is not a liberal-vs.-conservative issue or even a matter of intolerance. We live in a very left-leaning county where 100% of our elected officials are Democrats. Instead, I suggested, the problem is that the school system's policies are wildly extreme even by the standards of our community.
I don't know if I "won," but this teacher, a neighbor of mine, was clearly flustered, especially since I was calm and logical.
There are half a dozen talking points up there, free for the taking for any Republican politicians or conservative pundits who want them. It's not hard to make headway against wokism. The right just needs to make these arguments without coming off as caricatures of 1980s midwestern Christians. If wokism is taking over, it's because people on the right are pathetic and clueless about how to talk to people who are coming at issues from different angles.
Well done, sir. My applause follows. The right, or all those opposed to thought and speech control, can easily utilize these and other arguments. And refuse to bend when the namecalling and false characterizations come. Or when the Feds show up and start flashing badges.
Thanks, man. The thing is, the conversation was productive for me: It made me stop feeling, stop being angry, and instead inclined me to think and persuade.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd truly like a lawyer or someone from a free-speech organization like FIRE to summarize federal case law that covers religious and ethical accommodations for public school students and their families. For most of life, I've seen Jehovah's Witnesses exempted from certain school celebrations, and I recall kids being exempted from having to dissect frogs or cats because of ethical beliefs that weren't even explicitly religious. I'm sure others here can think of further examples. The school system pushing the no-opt-out policy should, based on precedent, have a hard time explaining why this is the one issue where families can't politely opt out.
But then the American right is pretty crappy at persuading. They show up to "debate" this issue and start talking about Natural Law and bringing back prayer in schools, as if we're able to roll things back to 1960 by being righteous, when we can perhaps roll things back to the ancient days of 2010 by being tactical, lawyerly, and smart. It also helps to move among liberal and progressive people long enough to understand their self-image, thus being able to show them how, ultimately, they're going to be on both the wrong side of this issue and, hopefully, the losing side.
It would help to remind liberals that they not only at one time believed fervently in "free speech", "free thought" and so forth, they were fervent champions. And, would also help to remind the wiser among them that these same powers and precedents, if allowed to stand, can be captured by those they hate, to do untold evil. The Democrats never consider that last point.
I'm finding that the approach you describe does work with my liberal friends and family members. It's why I'm not an "all is lost, start from scratch" conservative. We're looking at a generational effort here. Conservatives don't like to hear this, but if we want to return to anything resembling conservativism and a society respectful of religion, the path back to that leads directly back through liberalism.
Yep. I've never bought into doomerism. And it is only a small group on the Left who are wokist die hards. They may be seemingly dominating the Leftward side of things, but only because their grassroots activists are loud, and being amplified by some big money and media boosts.
I really look forward to the Live Not By Lies documentary being made (and provided financial support). Just like the book, it will be an excellent vehicle to tell the important stories of Kamila Bendova and other people with real world experiences under communism and totalitarianism .
My concern is many people that need to hear these stories will not watch the documentary, or read the book because the premise goes against their ingrained (indoctrinated) beliefs. Hopefully enough people in the middle and with open minds will do so.
Similarly, AOC and many of her wealthy supporters call a section of her Congressional District "The Peoples Republic of Astoria." Astoria is the moneyed part of her overwhelmingly poor District.
Back in the day it was the biggest Greek neighborhood in the city. Our pediatricians had an office there. They were Greek brothers with a surname about a mile long, so you called them Dr. Chris, Dr. Alex, and Dr. Nick, like hairdressers.
AOC was elected in 2018 by white professionals who were busy gentrifying her district and anxious to announce their wokeness. The working-class constituents, mostly ethnic minorities, went overwhelmingly for Joe Crowley, who brought in the pork to the 14th Congressional District since 1999. From what I've read, Crowley was an old-school Dem, who delivered the goods. In contrast, AOC has mostly been tweeting since 2019.
That sound about right. If memory serves, Crowley was in a leadership role and moving up the House Democratic ladder. He delivered for his District and she has not. In fact, AOC has hurt her District through her instrumental role in killing the Amazon project, which would have created many, many jobs.
I needed the words of your heroine back in 2003 when I dreamed of a thingamajig that could keep my schedule, make a phone call and take a photo... or back in 2009 when a king lost friend talked me into this wonderful thing called Facebook that would help us stay connected. Lord have mercy.
"I mention to her that tens of millions of Americans have installed in their houses so-called “smart speakers” that monitor conversations for the sake of making domestic life more convenient. Kamila visibly recoils. The appalled look on her face telegraphs a clear message: How can Americans be so gullible?"
In capitalist America, you watch TV.
In Soviet Russia, TV watches you!
Of course TV (and phones, smart speakers, computers etc.) also watch you in America now. The double reversal of the Soviet Russia reversal joke is pretty much complete.
Facebook probably rejected because of the violent imagery. Hope you can take the same sentiments and find an image where a foe is vanquished without depicting physical assault. BTW I am not saying that their decision was reasonable but I have had some memes and cartoons rejected for similar reasons.
Perhaps working in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as the force for good prevailing over the forces of evil, perhaps a cobra that had Trump's face on it, would get by the sensors of Facebook. The Facebook censors are a humorless crowd, one of the many reasons I quit Facebook.
I am careful about not supporting any group that gives the *appearance* of supporting violence. People do wind up in prison in the USA these days for that sort of thing. Kamila Bendova warned of being careful of Alexa, how much more so of this?
I don' t mind George and the Dragon but Judith severing a head is too far. People here will say "the Judith meme is not supporting violence". Of course not - my point is that both authorities and "average people" will think it is. - - And even if no one comes for me for supporting it, it will be part of a picture when "they" try to say that "we" that is "our side" are violent people and should be considered dangerous and criminal.
The second, also sad part, of what I feel I must say:
I thought twice about what I was going to give when I saw the violent, beheading image as an advertisement. Does Angel Studios really intend to promote the project this way??? I want to give and intend to, not to be deterred by one image, but I hope this is the only image like this.
I realize many here will disagree and I respect that.
Maybe Rod Dreher will not see this post - then there was not a lot of point in my being different and "sticking out" with this opinion, but I felt I needed to say it
Btw, there are people in prison in the USA now for supporting images like that (plus walking past a door police were holding open and doing nothing more). It's scary.
(Yes, I know it's a double standard since "they" get to use violent images.)
Not crazy about the memes (granted, subtlety is dead everywhere) but I think you/the studio may be able to appeal successfully; I’ve heard of that happening when someone with some prominence pushes back and the social media company can’t come up with a plausible reason to back what was probably an algorithm’s decision.
I agree. I support the cause but definitely don't support the beheading meme. It's too graphic and violent. IMHO it would be counter productive as advertisement.
BTW, even though I know the Biblical episode, I also find that meme sickeningly violent, and I'd be disturbed to see it representing what you're doing.
The Book of Judith is not included in Protestant Bibles, though Catholics and Orthodox accept it as scriptural. Lots of people are not familiar with Judith and her act.
You are right. And this project is for people who may or may not be exactly "like" Rod Dreher. I have a PhD but I am not a special lover of the visual arts, and I was raised Protestant. I was vaguely aware that there was an image like that, I'm sure I'd heard it was Judith, but did not particularly remember it as that. - - Also I'm not sure if it matters is people see "Judith" or not - I know they see violence no matter what they recognize.
Actually, it's included in many Protestant Bibles outside the US. I was shocked living in Germany, seeing a question out of Judith show up on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" (Wer wird Millionär?) (The show is still running over there and the host, Günther Jauch, has kind of become the Alex Trebek of Germany.)
Re: It's included in many Protestant Bibles outside the US
That's interesting! I'm aware of Judith etc. because I was brought up Catholic. I've never seen a "standard" Protestant Bible in English which includes the Apocrypha, though I know the original KJV did have the books, but set off in a separate section as if they were the Old Testament's poor relations.
For those who do know the story of Judith, the details are a bit incongruous with the message of living not by lies. Yes, she's a good woman who bravely seeks her foe's defeat against difficult odds -- but she gains access to the bad guy by ingratiating herself with the enemy and promising to betray Israel.
You're right Theresa. I can envision the blowback comments that would be made about advertisements depicting that level of violence. Such as: "Rod Dreher and his radical Far Right followers want to behead anyone that doesn't agree with their version of "the truth".
Yeah, I think it may be a blessing that Facebook rejected these, as it will force the marketing team to come up with better images. These seem to come from the "let's show pictures of aborted babies" school of protest, which I've never thought was effective.
You have to show people something to love, not something to hate.
I would suggest to Rod that he use something inspiring but not bloody: maybe the Chinese guy who stood up to the tank in Tiananmen Square? The demolishing of the Berlin Wall?
Why won't Facebook allow ads to be bought for the movie version of Living Not By Lies? If memory serves, several years ago FB began to employ CCP censors to enhance its screening processes. That may be why.
Clicking my search bar no longer results in Substack being listed in my "Frequently Visited" list. I still get Netflix although I haven't been subscribed for months. It's google of course.
Kamila Banda fought the great fight probably knowing her views wouldn't win in her lifetime. Yet she won. That's why we have to fight the powers that be. We might win eventually.
I also don’t love the marketing images. How about a photo like the guy at the Nazi rally (I think it was a Nazi rally) with his hands in his pockets while everyone else is giving the Nazi salute?
Although like most Americans I have a smart phone, I am NOT getting a Google Assistant or Alexa. If it answers right away, it’s listening to you. Employees of Google, etc. have admitted to listening to people’s conversations for fun. My life is pretty plain vanilla but it’s way too Big Brother for me. I’ll turn on my own lights & pick my own music, thank you.
We've had to replace two thermostats in our home in recent years, and both times the only available ones for our system had the option of connecting to the home Internet via wifi and being controlled from anywhere, anytime by an app. We are never, ever turning on that option. No Alexa or Siri or any of that crap for us. No "smart" appliances. No social media on my phone, and location services are turned off. And I don't feel at all inconvenienced.
I'm the person who usually skips over pictures in a book, and... I was a little confused by the meme attempts, thought the one was fairly gruesome, and skipped over them without figuring out what they're supposed to say. The reason why a lot of memes work is because they are eye-catching, so fairly bright, and the meaning is immediately apparent. As others have said, FB probably inadvertently did you a favor here.
This is "kind of" off topic but certainly related to responding to totalitarianism.
Second day back in Budapest for me - In the past I've said her how people in Budapest are so often friendly, helpful and kind.
I went to a hummus restaurant (across from A Table on Weselenyi) and noticed the guy who helped me - turned out to be the manager - kind of "glowed" because he was so especially kind, helpful and friendly when he spoke to people, even more than usual here, which is saying something. People left smiling after he spoke with them.
We got into a conversation when he brought the check. About his brother maybe going to live in Clearwater, Florida where I grew up, about how he might want to go there so he could wear the kippah (didn't ask....people dressed as traditional Jews are in the street here in the Jewish quarter where I'm staying, but he probably meant everywhere in town?....) but anyway....
One turn of the conversation led to another - we talked about how people treat each other - and he said "Do you know Elie Wisel?" and I said yes, and he said Elie Wisel was his great-uncle, yep, his grandfather was the brother of Elie Wiesel.
I sputtered, literally shed a tear, and what came out first was "I'm trying not to bow down, which would be very wrong".
We went on to talk about how he tries to treat people, how he hopes maybe, just maybe he can make their day a little better. I can return to the cafe regularly and talk to Ronnie Wiesel.
I think the Woke Left will win, certainly in the short run but possibly for the very long run as well.
Once you capture morality, you win the most crucial battle and all else follows from there.
Social Justice (a secular Christian heresy w Christian morals infused by statism and egalitarian utopianism) is the official state religion of the global corporate state, of the owners and operators of the Anglosphere, and of every educated striver under age 30.
We are living through a mass conversion of an Empire similar to the Roman conversion to Christianity (w both revolts based more or less on the moral power and demands of sacred victims and martyrs), and this is our new reality, despite how hard it is for those of us raised in 20th-century America to face and accept this.
Ah, but as a religion Social Justice is ONLY official. None of them REALLY believe in it for themselves.
im sure that's the same for all times and systems...beliefs are mostly instrumental, at least for people who aspire to excel or dominate in some way.
but i do seee your point...ours is a very fake, shallow and vapid ruling class.
True. But we must fight. We must begin a remnant.
We can be “Just a fly in the ointment, Hans. The monkey in the wrench. The pain in the ass.”
That's the spirit.
Christianity did not succeed purely by human endeavor. There is no Holy Spirit driving wokeness. If any spirit is driving it all, it is not one destined to win.
Social justice is neither a religion nor a heresy. It’s justice within society, not just between individuals. It’s doing right by both individuals and groups where they live, in society. Why this need to dismiss that because you don’t agree with somebody else’s opinions? That’s like banning the ugly parts of America’s history of race by dismissing them as “critical race theory.” Seems to me these are just more ways to live by lies.
"It’s justice within society, not just between individuals."
I'm not sure this has ever taken place, can ever take place, and modern history shows that once groups claim to be the embodiment of "Justice" they usually commit atrocities or at least revoke civil liberties. I would refer you to Thomas Sowell, who makes this argument much better than I ever could.
"It’s doing right by both individuals and groups where they live, in society."
This is the purpose of all discourse and politics, and the opponents of Soc Just (or any ideology) would make the same claim. There is no group or leader ever who didn't claim they were "doing right by both individuals and groups."
"Why this need to dismiss that because you don’t agree with somebody else’s opinions?"
I don't just dismiss Soc Just because of disagreement (and I would never argue against any policy that actually worked to ameliorate misery), I dismiss Soc Justice because it is illiberal, intolerant, dogmatic and blatantly opposed to free speech, thought and expression.
I honestly believe, after decades of study (I was introduced to Crit Theory in college in the 1980s!), that all forms of Leftism use the suffering of the marginalized (or the proletariat) as a pretext to gain power, while the driving force of these movements is always first and foremost meeting the political, social, economic and psychological needs of the vanguard class who craft the ideology, who are usually disaffected secular intellectuals. I would refer you to Eric Hoffer, who makes this argument much better than I ever could.
You are free to disagree with me, and free to think I'm stupid or cruel etc, but I promise you, I am not lying.
"I dismiss Soc Justice because it is illiberal, intolerant, dogmatic and blatantly opposed to free speech, thought and expression."
Excellent statement!
thanks!
I was going to do a PS apologizing if what I’d written sounded harsh and explaining that I was merely tired of social justice, a necessary principle and ideal, being dismissed as ideology. But then you said << I dismiss Soc Justice because it is illiberal, intolerant, dogmatic and blatantly opposed to free speech, thought and expression.>> So as Ronald Reagan might put it, “There you go again.”
I assume you’re talking about some form of liberalism or even socialism, Marxism, what-have-you. But social justice doesn’t belong to any political ideology; it’s a moral principle. Human life on earth would be doomed to a constant round of misery — as I realize some forms of Christianity more or less think it is, though not mine (Catholicism) — if we didn’t strive for social, as well as personal, familial, etc., justice. Looking back on history, I certainly do believe we’ve made great strides in that direction. As we should.
Maybe we're just quibbling over the difference bw "social justice" (a vague yet sweet-sounding phrase few could oppose) and Social Justice, the ideology that also includes Gender Theory, Queer Theory, Antiracism, etc?
"Human life on earth would be doomed to a constant round of misery...if we didn’t strive for social, as well as personal, familial, etc., justice."
I appreciate your words and the sentiment behind them, but just about every word in the back half of your phrasing is open to interpretation, which is the essence of discourse and politics (we have to accept that we all see and define these things differently), and in the case of Social Justice the ideology seems to create as much misery as it solves.
I try to stick w the Tao and just practice simple benevolence, I leave social crusades and "changing the world" to others.
PS I didn’t mean to accuse you of lying.
I was comparing equating (and thereby dismissing) social justice with various forms of ideology (leftism, socialism, Marxism, Communism, etc.) with equating the teaching of black American history that’s critical and looks at various systemic forms of racism with “critical race theory,” which over 20 states have done. That I do think is another way of living by lies, which isn’t necessarily telling lies, just not allowing yourself to take in the whole truth.
There are those who’ve been involved in banning black history courses I would accuse of directly lying, at least to themselves, e.g., those Floridian “educators” who claim American slavery had its positive side, e.g., in teaching slaves so many useful skills (!).
I’m afraid we’re at the point in our dwindling American Church that some good ol’ fashioned communist totalitarianism may be the spark needed to relight the flame. Might actually listen to the words while singing hymns in prison.
Wokeness posits a moral order built around levels of group oppression (intersectionality). It's absurd. It's dangerous. It's totally antithetical to individual human rights. But it's growing because it serves a purpose, filling the moral void left by the Enlightenment's privatization of religion and morality. The Right is trying (Deneen's Regime Change is an attempt, as is Amari's integralism) to follow the same road without much success.
I disagree that they will win long-term. Like communism, wokeness is built on a false view of man, and therefore, it will implode. But also like Communism, systems of un-reality can last a very long time and destroy a great many lives before they fail.
"Sin is the love of that which is not real" - Thomas Merton
What’s the reference on that. Google couldn’t find it. I’m a pastor and I think I’ll be using the line, but I’d like to be able to cite it.
There's something very similar in *No Man Is an Island*: "Sin is the will to do what God does not will, to know what He does not know, to love what He does not love."
Sorry, but I read that a long time ago in one of Merton's writings (I don't remember which one), it was not someone else's quote of him. I've used it in my Sunday School classes.
M. Scott Peck (who was a bit of a kook) wrote of his exorcism experiences that "Satan is a real spirit of unreality" which also echoes the idea.
God bless you and your work.
Wokeness will dissolve when the corporate interests that support it realize that their bottom line is awash in red ink, but like others have stated, the effects will linger for generations.
I think you (and all of us) need a definition of "woke". If you just mean "social liberalism" you are probably right (if not necessarily on every particular issue). But on other matters I don't think the the Free Traders or the Open Borders folks will win. Nor are Americans (including many rather liberal and many non-white people people) going to tolerate high levels of crime and disorder-- we're already seeing overly permissive DAs getting tossed out of office. And the intolerant cancelers will not won-- huge numbers of people won't put up with that-- American are at heart libertarian (small "l") in attitude. Though I am assuming that nothing catastrophic upends things: no massive natural disaster, no high casualty act of war (e.g., with nukes) on American soil, no serious attempt by the crazypants Right to pull off a coup and overthrow the Constitution (Jan 6 was not a serious attempt). In both Eastern Europe and East Asia Communism only came to power because of the huge disruption of WWII and the active support of the Soviets (and the Red Army in Europe). And in Russia itself it took the upheaval of WWI and the fall of the tsarist regime to open the door for Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
Thanks for the well thought out reply.
I’m actually fiscally to the left and you’re correct about Free-Traders but I’m afraid the Open Border folks have already won.
Well, I'm a bit more optimistic as I do think there are viable deals that can be cut on immigration. Trump almost had one back in 2017 but he let himself be derailed by Ann Coulter's hissy fit. Trump's defects aside, one big problem we have these days is the unwillingness of too many people to do the hard work of compromise and horse trading and half-loaf dickering. Insisting on "my way or the high way" is what allows disorder to flourish.
This. In addition some cities (e.g., New York) are rapidly becoming uninhabitable.
Let me gloss that. It's uninhabitable if you, e.g., have to take a subway train to work. In fairness, I used to see Gail Collins on the Number One train all the time.
The woke left only wins when people cower, shut up, and run and hide.
Had a conversation last week with a local teacher about the school system not allowing Muslim parents to opt their kids out of LGBT material in the classroom. Of course, he was all for the no-opt-out policy, because of LGBT über alles.
But then I pointed out a little thing called the First Amendment, and that there's a case to be made for the government infringing on the families' religious rights. I pointed out that the school system makes accommodations all the time: for example, for students with ethical objections to dissecting frogs, or to tons of policies that give pseudo-"transgender" kids special privileges. I also pointed out that much of this material wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in our liberal county if it hadn't been wrapped in nonstop "Pride" celebrations and "trans" policies that involve keeping secrets from parents.
I also pointed out that when the entire school system and its team of lawyers and bureaucrats is arrayed against a few dissenting families who aren't telling the school system or fellow students what they can or can't do (unlike "trans" accommodation), then my teacher friend is taking the side of power against the little guy. Then I added that it's even worse because in this case, secular white progressives are trying to impose their will on brown-skinned minorities. Why, some of them are almost certainly immigrants. How is it "diversity" to have white progressives telling everyone that there's one way to do things and one way to feel?
I closed by pointing out that this is not a liberal-vs.-conservative issue or even a matter of intolerance. We live in a very left-leaning county where 100% of our elected officials are Democrats. Instead, I suggested, the problem is that the school system's policies are wildly extreme even by the standards of our community.
I don't know if I "won," but this teacher, a neighbor of mine, was clearly flustered, especially since I was calm and logical.
There are half a dozen talking points up there, free for the taking for any Republican politicians or conservative pundits who want them. It's not hard to make headway against wokism. The right just needs to make these arguments without coming off as caricatures of 1980s midwestern Christians. If wokism is taking over, it's because people on the right are pathetic and clueless about how to talk to people who are coming at issues from different angles.
Well done, sir. My applause follows. The right, or all those opposed to thought and speech control, can easily utilize these and other arguments. And refuse to bend when the namecalling and false characterizations come. Or when the Feds show up and start flashing badges.
Thanks, man. The thing is, the conversation was productive for me: It made me stop feeling, stop being angry, and instead inclined me to think and persuade.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd truly like a lawyer or someone from a free-speech organization like FIRE to summarize federal case law that covers religious and ethical accommodations for public school students and their families. For most of life, I've seen Jehovah's Witnesses exempted from certain school celebrations, and I recall kids being exempted from having to dissect frogs or cats because of ethical beliefs that weren't even explicitly religious. I'm sure others here can think of further examples. The school system pushing the no-opt-out policy should, based on precedent, have a hard time explaining why this is the one issue where families can't politely opt out.
But then the American right is pretty crappy at persuading. They show up to "debate" this issue and start talking about Natural Law and bringing back prayer in schools, as if we're able to roll things back to 1960 by being righteous, when we can perhaps roll things back to the ancient days of 2010 by being tactical, lawyerly, and smart. It also helps to move among liberal and progressive people long enough to understand their self-image, thus being able to show them how, ultimately, they're going to be on both the wrong side of this issue and, hopefully, the losing side.
It would help to remind liberals that they not only at one time believed fervently in "free speech", "free thought" and so forth, they were fervent champions. And, would also help to remind the wiser among them that these same powers and precedents, if allowed to stand, can be captured by those they hate, to do untold evil. The Democrats never consider that last point.
I'm finding that the approach you describe does work with my liberal friends and family members. It's why I'm not an "all is lost, start from scratch" conservative. We're looking at a generational effort here. Conservatives don't like to hear this, but if we want to return to anything resembling conservativism and a society respectful of religion, the path back to that leads directly back through liberalism.
Yep. I've never bought into doomerism. And it is only a small group on the Left who are wokist die hards. They may be seemingly dominating the Leftward side of things, but only because their grassroots activists are loud, and being amplified by some big money and media boosts.
I really look forward to the Live Not By Lies documentary being made (and provided financial support). Just like the book, it will be an excellent vehicle to tell the important stories of Kamila Bendova and other people with real world experiences under communism and totalitarianism .
My concern is many people that need to hear these stories will not watch the documentary, or read the book because the premise goes against their ingrained (indoctrinated) beliefs. Hopefully enough people in the middle and with open minds will do so.
Here's a current example of the indoctrination that's happening on college campuses. This link is for next weekend's "Join the Communists" event near the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. https://alphanews.org/join-the-communists-minneapolis-to-play-host-to-marxist-school/
It won't be surprising to see socialism/communism continue to gain popularity in Minnesota and other states, since some elected state legislators consider it a compliment to be called socialist. https://alphanews.org/dfl-legislators-embrace-socialist-label-gop-colleague-lobbed-at-them-in-viral-clip/
Similarly, AOC and many of her wealthy supporters call a section of her Congressional District "The Peoples Republic of Astoria." Astoria is the moneyed part of her overwhelmingly poor District.
Astoria is where Archie Bunker lived.
Meathead lived there, too. For free.
Back in the day it was the biggest Greek neighborhood in the city. Our pediatricians had an office there. They were Greek brothers with a surname about a mile long, so you called them Dr. Chris, Dr. Alex, and Dr. Nick, like hairdressers.
AOC was elected in 2018 by white professionals who were busy gentrifying her district and anxious to announce their wokeness. The working-class constituents, mostly ethnic minorities, went overwhelmingly for Joe Crowley, who brought in the pork to the 14th Congressional District since 1999. From what I've read, Crowley was an old-school Dem, who delivered the goods. In contrast, AOC has mostly been tweeting since 2019.
That sound about right. If memory serves, Crowley was in a leadership role and moving up the House Democratic ladder. He delivered for his District and she has not. In fact, AOC has hurt her District through her instrumental role in killing the Amazon project, which would have created many, many jobs.
And doing vegetarian chili videos.
I needed the words of your heroine back in 2003 when I dreamed of a thingamajig that could keep my schedule, make a phone call and take a photo... or back in 2009 when a king lost friend talked me into this wonderful thing called Facebook that would help us stay connected. Lord have mercy.
And I needed the Benedict option sooner than I got it ;)
"I mention to her that tens of millions of Americans have installed in their houses so-called “smart speakers” that monitor conversations for the sake of making domestic life more convenient. Kamila visibly recoils. The appalled look on her face telegraphs a clear message: How can Americans be so gullible?"
In capitalist America, you watch TV.
In Soviet Russia, TV watches you!
Of course TV (and phones, smart speakers, computers etc.) also watch you in America now. The double reversal of the Soviet Russia reversal joke is pretty much complete.
Facebook probably rejected because of the violent imagery. Hope you can take the same sentiments and find an image where a foe is vanquished without depicting physical assault. BTW I am not saying that their decision was reasonable but I have had some memes and cartoons rejected for similar reasons.
Judith and Holofernes, maybe. (I love the crone looking on: "A little more to the right?") But St. George and the Dragon?
Perhaps working in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as the force for good prevailing over the forces of evil, perhaps a cobra that had Trump's face on it, would get by the sensors of Facebook. The Facebook censors are a humorless crowd, one of the many reasons I quit Facebook.
If you photoshopped Trump's head onto Holofernes' neck they would thumbs up it immediately.
I completely agree. May I be honest?
I am careful about not supporting any group that gives the *appearance* of supporting violence. People do wind up in prison in the USA these days for that sort of thing. Kamila Bendova warned of being careful of Alexa, how much more so of this?
I don' t mind George and the Dragon but Judith severing a head is too far. People here will say "the Judith meme is not supporting violence". Of course not - my point is that both authorities and "average people" will think it is. - - And even if no one comes for me for supporting it, it will be part of a picture when "they" try to say that "we" that is "our side" are violent people and should be considered dangerous and criminal.
The second, also sad part, of what I feel I must say:
I thought twice about what I was going to give when I saw the violent, beheading image as an advertisement. Does Angel Studios really intend to promote the project this way??? I want to give and intend to, not to be deterred by one image, but I hope this is the only image like this.
I realize many here will disagree and I respect that.
Maybe Rod Dreher will not see this post - then there was not a lot of point in my being different and "sticking out" with this opinion, but I felt I needed to say it
Btw, there are people in prison in the USA now for supporting images like that (plus walking past a door police were holding open and doing nothing more). It's scary.
(Yes, I know it's a double standard since "they" get to use violent images.)
I don't think it's an accident that it's Caravaggio freaking everybody out, btw.
It also looks like the label "The Truth" is pointing at the bad guy's head, which is . . . not good.
Not crazy about the memes (granted, subtlety is dead everywhere) but I think you/the studio may be able to appeal successfully; I’ve heard of that happening when someone with some prominence pushes back and the social media company can’t come up with a plausible reason to back what was probably an algorithm’s decision.
I agree. I support the cause but definitely don't support the beheading meme. It's too graphic and violent. IMHO it would be counter productive as advertisement.
Not only counter productive, but actually giving ammunition to those depicting us as violent extremists!
(I'm sure they still would see it that way even if they recognized the Biblical episode depicted in the painting, which of course they won't.)
The dragon meme is fine, though.
BTW, even though I know the Biblical episode, I also find that meme sickeningly violent, and I'd be disturbed to see it representing what you're doing.
The Book of Judith is not included in Protestant Bibles, though Catholics and Orthodox accept it as scriptural. Lots of people are not familiar with Judith and her act.
Do you really think that anybody interested in Dreher's work is not going to know who Judith, Holofernes, and Caravaggio are?
You are right. And this project is for people who may or may not be exactly "like" Rod Dreher. I have a PhD but I am not a special lover of the visual arts, and I was raised Protestant. I was vaguely aware that there was an image like that, I'm sure I'd heard it was Judith, but did not particularly remember it as that. - - Also I'm not sure if it matters is people see "Judith" or not - I know they see violence no matter what they recognize.
Actually, it's included in many Protestant Bibles outside the US. I was shocked living in Germany, seeing a question out of Judith show up on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" (Wer wird Millionär?) (The show is still running over there and the host, Günther Jauch, has kind of become the Alex Trebek of Germany.)
I also remember a one-hit wonder band in Germany in the early 2000s, the name of which escapes me, but not the singer’s stage name: Judith Holofernes.
Re: It's included in many Protestant Bibles outside the US
That's interesting! I'm aware of Judith etc. because I was brought up Catholic. I've never seen a "standard" Protestant Bible in English which includes the Apocrypha, though I know the original KJV did have the books, but set off in a separate section as if they were the Old Testament's poor relations.
Burke throws a hand grenade in citing Ecclesiasticus in the Reflections.
For those who do know the story of Judith, the details are a bit incongruous with the message of living not by lies. Yes, she's a good woman who bravely seeks her foe's defeat against difficult odds -- but she gains access to the bad guy by ingratiating herself with the enemy and promising to betray Israel.
You're right Theresa. I can envision the blowback comments that would be made about advertisements depicting that level of violence. Such as: "Rod Dreher and his radical Far Right followers want to behead anyone that doesn't agree with their version of "the truth".
If he put Snoopy on the cover he'd still be a right-wing extremist.
By some, yes. Still no reason for the producers to make that situation worse.
Yeah, I think it may be a blessing that Facebook rejected these, as it will force the marketing team to come up with better images. These seem to come from the "let's show pictures of aborted babies" school of protest, which I've never thought was effective.
You have to show people something to love, not something to hate.
Right on the money!
I would suggest to Rod that he use something inspiring but not bloody: maybe the Chinese guy who stood up to the tank in Tiananmen Square? The demolishing of the Berlin Wall?
Who doesn't love a hot babe slicing off the head of a drunk bully?
A beautiful sentiment.
Yes, I don't think these samples are better than the original book cover artwork.
Why won't Facebook allow ads to be bought for the movie version of Living Not By Lies? If memory serves, several years ago FB began to employ CCP censors to enhance its screening processes. That may be why.
Clicking my search bar no longer results in Substack being listed in my "Frequently Visited" list. I still get Netflix although I haven't been subscribed for months. It's google of course.
The moment I type an "R" in the search bar it fills in "roddreher.substack.com". (I use Chrome as my browser)
Thanks. This is now the easiest shortcut.
Kamila Banda fought the great fight probably knowing her views wouldn't win in her lifetime. Yet she won. That's why we have to fight the powers that be. We might win eventually.
If the memes supported Devil worship or the occult, no matter how hideous — I'm sure they would pass.
Support can’t be done from Canada?
I also don’t love the marketing images. How about a photo like the guy at the Nazi rally (I think it was a Nazi rally) with his hands in his pockets while everyone else is giving the Nazi salute?
Although like most Americans I have a smart phone, I am NOT getting a Google Assistant or Alexa. If it answers right away, it’s listening to you. Employees of Google, etc. have admitted to listening to people’s conversations for fun. My life is pretty plain vanilla but it’s way too Big Brother for me. I’ll turn on my own lights & pick my own music, thank you.
We've had to replace two thermostats in our home in recent years, and both times the only available ones for our system had the option of connecting to the home Internet via wifi and being controlled from anywhere, anytime by an app. We are never, ever turning on that option. No Alexa or Siri or any of that crap for us. No "smart" appliances. No social media on my phone, and location services are turned off. And I don't feel at all inconvenienced.
I'm the person who usually skips over pictures in a book, and... I was a little confused by the meme attempts, thought the one was fairly gruesome, and skipped over them without figuring out what they're supposed to say. The reason why a lot of memes work is because they are eye-catching, so fairly bright, and the meaning is immediately apparent. As others have said, FB probably inadvertently did you a favor here.
This is "kind of" off topic but certainly related to responding to totalitarianism.
Second day back in Budapest for me - In the past I've said her how people in Budapest are so often friendly, helpful and kind.
I went to a hummus restaurant (across from A Table on Weselenyi) and noticed the guy who helped me - turned out to be the manager - kind of "glowed" because he was so especially kind, helpful and friendly when he spoke to people, even more than usual here, which is saying something. People left smiling after he spoke with them.
We got into a conversation when he brought the check. About his brother maybe going to live in Clearwater, Florida where I grew up, about how he might want to go there so he could wear the kippah (didn't ask....people dressed as traditional Jews are in the street here in the Jewish quarter where I'm staying, but he probably meant everywhere in town?....) but anyway....
One turn of the conversation led to another - we talked about how people treat each other - and he said "Do you know Elie Wisel?" and I said yes, and he said Elie Wisel was his great-uncle, yep, his grandfather was the brother of Elie Wiesel.
I sputtered, literally shed a tear, and what came out first was "I'm trying not to bow down, which would be very wrong".
We went on to talk about how he tries to treat people, how he hopes maybe, just maybe he can make their day a little better. I can return to the cafe regularly and talk to Ronnie Wiesel.
This is Budapest.