Skimming through this wordy work, given that I skim through maybe 30 – 35 such pieces a day on a slack day, this stood out in this particular leftwing piece:
Who are the new gods? This is what makes our moment so interesting: the conventional wisdom is cracking up but its replacement hasn’t quite consolidated.
As James Bridle says, something is wrong on the internet — and something is wrong with the way we have thought about the internet — but there is not yet a widely accepted set of answers to the all-important questions of why these things are wrong, or how to make them right.
Different camps are now competing to provide those answers. They are competing to tell a new story about the internet, one that can explain the origins of our present crisis and offer a roadmap for moving past it. Some talk about monopoly and antitrust. Others emphasize privacy and consent. Shoshana Zuboff proposes the term “surveillance capitalism” to describe the new kinds of for-profit monitoring and manipulation that the internet and associated technologies have made possible.
These analyses have important differences. But they tend to share a liberal understanding of capitalism as a basically beneficent system …
The language used in that quote is what defines it but methinks this would satisfy all mindsets except those of techies perhaps:
Different camps are now competing to provide those answers. They are competing to tell a new story about the internet, one that can explain the origins of our present crisis and offer a roadmap for moving past it.
When someone employs the word liberal in a work in that way, then that person is a Marxist, a pejorative of course. And the term Left goes with it as a travelling companion, equally as pejorative. Now look at this:
“Get Woke, Go Broke” is another example of right-wing wishful thinking.
No prizes for knowing which camp that writer is in. His camp is the one whose apparatchiks have redefined language to mean whatever they damn well want it to mean, from ‘diversity’ to ‘fairness’ to ‘anythingphobia’ – the Harry and Meghan Woke camp.
Problem is that that there are many points on which they are correct and that just quoted is one of them but when it comes with all the other leftwing guff which is essentially dedicated to:
1) Abolition of all ordered governments
2) Abolition of private property
3) Abolition of inheritance
4) Abolition of patriotism
5) Abolition of the family
6) Abolition of religion
7) Creation of a world government
… then count me out. The nature of ‘you didn’t build that’ is guff – the pioneer building his log cabin did not build those trees, no, nor the grass, nor the sun but the man who buys a corner store and puts in endless hours, advertising for helpers at the stated rates – he did build that but there’s an even bigger principle involved – that feckless ne’er-do-wells saying he didn’t and therefore, not having done one stroke of work for that firm should now support the State taking it off that man – that’s a fundamental principle over which we shall never meet.
There is a case for saying that those trees, the grass, the sun belong to One on a Higher Plane and there’s a book you can read about that – personally, i like the KJV best for the language.
And what the NT does is change the thrust of the OT away from coercion and far more to the power to decide whether one accepts or not [John 3:16]. I’ve seen the left try to interpret that verse as a Muslim type catechism about the beauty of the Koran. On the surface, it invites anyone to show a different work more beautiful and immediately states that that is not possible and therefore, dire punishment awaits whoever tries to take up that challenge.
There is no way John 3:16 can be interpreted that way, validly, because it would not then be faith. This is reinforced by the Doubting Thomas episode, also Peter attempting to walk on water, the whole NT is about persuasion by argument, hence Saul’s Damascene moment. Cults which never let you escape are not valid, IMHO.
You see in this post a strong pro-choice stance, which is interesting in the light of my pro-life stance on abortion, which certainly involves coercion in preventing someone killing another.
Which then circumvents the natural corollary of choice, which is Palpatine’s and Crowley’s ‘do as thou wilt’. And there’s the question of security for the village or nation – where do the soldiers come from?
In the NT is a strong sense of reality as well, acknowledgement that people are not going to live as in Matthew Chapters 5-7, they are going to leave, unconstrained, as the new generation has started to do – hedonistic snowflakery, despair, depression, violence against anyone threatening to take their Narrative away – you could almost say the clash of Narratives – the left’s narrative of the child [see Corbyn and continuation lackeys] and the right’s narrative of the adult [see Sir Roger Scruton, CS Lewis].
The whole point is enough people agreeing to abide by a set of groundrules – and M 5-7 is one of those … or else all sorts of Hell breaks loose once the philosophers unnecessarily try to nut out, using limited human sensory equipment, that which no human can understand this side of eternity.
And if they come close [see Tower of Babel and Second Coming], then intervention is on the cards. But that’s another story.
The reality today
There is a politburo of sorts using its thinktanks to churn out all the guff it is and that guff is using the worst of all systems combined, never to reach that state of nirvana, not even for the elite. Marxism? Statism? Whateverism? The bottom line is that anything that Them come out with should be opposed, if only by ‘work to rule’, ‘go slows’, ‘non-cooperation’, ‘spanners in the works’, the latter not unlike Harry Tuttle in Brazil.
The one I’ve been writing on of late is the post-Millennial female who has no code, no constraint, no sense of history, no sexual model except screwing around, avoiding commitment – in short, taking the unhealthy and destructive option because it’s part of the Narrative and there’s nothing else in their empty, Kardashian lives. Those lapping up Strictly are also tending to this but perhaps there are some vestiges of decency left in other ways.
It’s not new. If you’ve studied the 20s, you saw precisely this ‘do as thou wilt’ in what the female was being urged to do. Even Annette Hanshaw, everyone’s darling who might be making a reappearance not long from now, sang, ‘I want to be bad’.
What’s wrong with the song? What was wrong was the influence it had on an already highly feminazised nation, post suffragette. Girls just wanna have fun sang Lauper decades later, and ‘fun’ becomes what we’re seeing today.
There was an intermediate attempt to collapse society using human folly and addiction in the 60s, culminating in Woodstock. With John Phillips pushing his narcotics and lyrics urging everyone to abandon themselves, the controllers could well sing:
… as could those urging people to see the implications of their behavioural patterns. Deaf ears. The new Boomers were only going to be overtaken by the godless Gen X with the earring in one ear and the acid parties and raves, Big Pharma was delighted.
To me, it’s simple – society needs a workable set of rules conducive to harmony, voluntarily accepted in the main, but not one which snuffs out choice – rather it urges informed choice.
Marxism? You have to be kidding – it always becomes State capitalism in the worst way, people always end up enslaved with no incentive, just stagnation – if you’ve lived in Russia, you’ve seen it all around. Islam? You’ve all seen where that ends up.
Yeah right – makes you feel so safe, does it not? Who will they choose for the next sacrifice?
But it’s not just all those sorts of things, it’s simple ethics, do unto others, all the rest of the truisms.
Coming back to the internet, which started this post, it’s most certainly had a huge influence on the young and the influences have hardly been wholesome. Yet I’m part of the net and so are many others trying to call out the swamp-dwellers – it stops all but the insane DemRats in Washington, it certainly stops those coming up for re-election.
Without elections, what other coercion is available to us to make those thinking they’re elite [see Markle] at least adhere to some sort of generally agreed order and decency? More or less, these things are always ragged around the edges.