mouthporn.net
#the war on the west – @religion-is-a-mental-illness on Tumblr

Religion is a Mental Illness

@religion-is-a-mental-illness / religion-is-a-mental-illness.tumblr.com

Tribeless. Problematic. Triggering. Faith is a cognitive sickness.
Avatar

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Nov 7, 2023

Away from the horror unfolding in Israel, the past month has provided one long acid test for the West’s commitment to liberal values. What are we to make of middle-class bien pensants asserting that mass murder requires “context”, of the overt antisemitism, and of a police force that makes excuses for theocrats calling for “jihad” on the streets of London? For some, this is proof of the failure of multiculturalism. For others, it is the final straw that broke the back of liberalism. Hate speech laws must now be strengthened, certain protests ought to be banned, and we must no longer tolerate the intolerant.

Republican senator Tom Cotton has called for those who express support for Hamas to be deported, and Donald Trump has promised to do so if re-elected. In France, Emmanuel Macron has outlawed pro-Palestine rallies on the grounds of maintaining public order, although his decree has been largely ignored. Closer to home, a pro-Palestinian protest has been scheduled in London for Armistice Day, a tactic surely intended to generate as much outrage and attention as possible.

In that respect, it has already succeeded. Rishi Sunak has stopped short of a ban, but has called on the Met Police to make “robust use” of its powers to prevent the Remembrance events being disrupted. In this, he is out of kilter with the majority of the country: only 18% believe it “should be allowed to go ahead”.

Liberalism has always been a tricky prospect, cherishing personal autonomy and freedom of speech up to the point where our behaviour encroaches on the rights of others. To ideologues, it is a poison, because it rejects their insistence that we ought to follow a preordained set of rules. Some even claim that liberalism is itself an ideology, though I see it as the precise opposite: it is the repudiation of ideological thinking — because it refuses to accept oversimplified interpretations of reality, or to outsource our decision-making capacities to an already established creed. This is why there are liberals on the Left, the Right, and everywhere in between.

Yet it has been dispiriting to see our commitment to Enlightenment values being assaulted on multiple fronts. There are theocratic extremists who oppose free speech and would happily see blasphemers and apostates executed. There are Western activists intoxicated by the moonshine of intersectional identity politics calling for censorship and other restrictions. And now, we have those who once considered themselves to be “liberal” pronouncing that there should be limitations to freedom of speech and assembly.

Even those who have previously decried “cancel culture” appear to be relishing its impact on their opponents. A lecture at Liverpool Hope University by Professor Avi Shlaim, a critic of Israel, was cancelled out of concern for the “safety and wellbeing” of students; Michael Eisen, a geneticist at UC Berkeley, was fired as editor-in-chief of eLife magazine for sharing a satirical article from The Onion which took a pro-Palestine stance. Eisen, some have pointed out, had previously questioned whether cancellation really exists. But while a degree of schadenfreude is understandable, it is hardly helpful.

That there are no rulebooks to consult is liberalism’s major appeal to those of a free-thinking disposition, but it is also the source of its instability. The authoritarian has no need to engage with his detractors; he can simply have them eliminated. By contrast, the liberal must find a way to coexist with those who yearn to see his freedoms quashed, to somehow reconcile himself to the multiplicity of human outlooks and their inherent incommensurability. But how can you run a marketplace of ideas while there are hooligans trying to overturn the tables?

This essential vulnerability is always tested in moments of crisis. Governments enact “emergency powers” when at war because short-term authoritarianism seems preferable to the alternative. So when protesters at pro-Palestine marches in London are holding signs that openly celebrate the slaughter, rape and kidnapping of civilians, and an official advisor to the Met police is filmed leading a chant of “from the river to the sea”, there will always be pressure from a justifiably incensed public to resort to authoritarian remedies.

Even in peacetime, liberalism is susceptible to changing trends within the nation state. What happens, for instance, when the majority of any given population rejects the liberal values upon which their society is based? What if a government has implemented reckless migration policies that grant citizenship to those who do not recognise the value of individual freedoms? In such circumstances, the principle of democracy could be its own undoing.

Sweden is often considered to be a case in point. According to its national police chief, the rapid surge in migration over the past decade has led to an “unprecedented” rise in gang warfare between those who do not respect the rule of law. On a recent trip to Stockholm, I found myself discussing the implications with a group of residents. One woman expressed the view that Swedish people tended to take liberalism for granted, and that they had assumed newcomers would be eager to adopt the values of the nation that had welcomed them. Now many fear that this was warm-hearted naivety, and that the government had not done enough to ensure widespread integration.

Liberal countries acknowledge their moral responsibility to offer asylum for those in need, and typically take a compassionate view towards foreigners seeking a more prosperous life. At the same time, there must be a degree of societal consensus for the ethos of these nations to survive at all. For where such a consensus is jeopardised, either through mass immigration or radical domestic political movements, the temptation to dispense with liberal values is inevitable. But to call for the deportation of citizens who actively seek the demolition of our culture is to surrender our principles to the very people who oppose them. It is to resign oneself to authoritarianism in a perverse effort to defeat it.

Inevitably, one thinks of Karl Popper’s famous paradox that “in the name of tolerance” we should claim “the right not to tolerate the intolerant”. This is often invoked by activists to defend censorship of their opponents, typically in the form of a well-known cartoon meme that decontextualises and misreads Popper’s formulation:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

Popper’s next sentence is often omitted, in which he emphasises that so long as public opinion and rational argument can “keep them in check”, suppression of intolerant views would be “most unwise”. Protesters who take to the streets to celebrate murder fall into this category because they are self-discrediting. They are impervious to reason, but their sentiments are so essentially rebarbative that there is no risk of public opinion shifting in their favour.

But, some might respond, if liberalism is so delicate and continually under threat, why bother with it at all? In short: because it works. For all the claims by identitarian activists that the Western world is a racist hellhole, few living in the era of Jim Crow could have conceived of the advances we have made since then. The triumph of social liberalism is evident in multiple studies that show how Western societies are the most tolerant and diverse to have ever existed. It is no coincidence that all of the major civil rights movements — for black emancipation, feminism and gay rights — have traditionally been underpinned by a commitment to free speech and liberal ideals.

Of course, it is only natural that our patience is wearing thin. Having already witnessed pro-Palestine protesters in London throwing fireworks at police, and chanting in support of “Intifada” on the Tube, there can be no guarantees that such behaviour won’t be repeated on Saturday. The timing seems not only calculated to maximise publicity, but also as a declaration of contempt for British values and history.

But even if unruly and disrespectful, it would be self-defeating to ban the protest, or to insist on deportations for the worst offenders. Taking action against direct incitement to violence is one thing, but compromising on our key values is another. If we renege on our principles at the very moment when they are most imperilled, we risk undermining the very foundations upon which our civilisation is built. The authoritarian instinct may be a human constant but, with vigilance, it can be forestalled.

==

Liberalism is to ideology as atheism is to religion.

Source: unherd.com
Avatar
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once said that the strength or weakness of a society depends more on the level of its spiritual life, than on its level of industrialization. If a nation's spiritual energies have been exhausted, he said, it will not be saved from collapse by the most perfect government structure, or by any industrial development. A tree with a rotten core cannot stand.
When he was allowed to leave the USSR Solzhenitsyn went to the US, where he was given a hero's welcome. But he quickly realized that American society was far from perfect. He started lecturing Americans about the problems he saw. Americans don't like that. Like Solzhenitsyn, I come from the Soviet Union, but I have no intention of repeating his mistake. That's why I've come to Britain, where you love being told what's wrong with you by foreigners.
But I do have to be honest. Six months ago, when Jordan and Philippa asked me to come here and speak at ARC about the importance of audacity, adventure and a positive vision for our civilization, I was honored and delighted.
But as I stand here today, after watching crowds openly celebrate mass murder on the streets of our cities, after watching the police spend more time debating Islamic theology on Twitter than enforcing the law, I'm starting to lose faith. I don't know how long our civilization Will survive.
For years now many of us have been warning that the barbarians are at the gates. We were wrong. They're inside. Now look, I'm not going to be all doom and gloom, there are positives as well. I mean, say what you want about Hamas supporters, at least they know what a woman is.
But joking aside, I have to be honest. I've been in a dark place these last few weeks, so I did what I always do when I don't know what to do: I talk to my wife. It's not the only time I talk to her, but you know, get the point. And she said, look, you need to clear your mind, take a few days off, let's go on holiday. And I know, it's a weird thing to say, I don't like going on holiday, cause I love working, and I hate spending money. Protestant work ethic in a Jewish man's body. My wife is exactly the other way around, unfortunately.
But she was right. She's always right. That's her best and most annoying quality. So, we went to Barcelona. Beautiful city. And as we were walking down the main tourist street, La Rambla, many of you will know, when you get to the bottom, you hit the Christopher Columbus Monument. It looks like a giant column with a pillar of Columbus on top pointing towards the New World. And this reminded me of my son, Nikolai. He's 16 months, and this is what he does, he sits on my hip and points in the direction he wants to go. Treats me like a horse, basically. And if I don't act quickly enough, or if I don't comply, he does what all toddlers do: he throws a tantrum and starts screaming. How dare you! You have stolen my dreams with your empty words! And when he does, we read him a story and put him to bed. We don't give him a standing ovation in front of the UN.
Anyway, trigger warning, I am going to talk positively about Christopher Columbus. I know he committed some pretty sizable microaggressions, but he also changed the world. Do you know why he changed the world? Yeah, he tried to reach India and by accident discovered America. But why go west to India? Europeans had been trading with India and China for centuries via the Silk Road. Why risk your life to go out on a limb? There were many reasons of course, but the main one was the decision to try and reach Asia by going west, was not made out of choice. Europe was desperate. Only a few decades prior, in 1453, the Ottomans sacked Constantinople, and they cut Europe off from the Silk Road. The West Was facing a huge challenge and a new threat. No smaller than the one we face today. And like us what they needed was another way.
But when Columbus took his idea to go west to India to the kings and queens of medieval Europe, they laughed at him. They didn't laugh at him because he was some misunderstood genius, he wasn't Galileo. They laughed at him because he was wrong. If you go out in the street and ask a random person why Columbus discovered America, they'll tell you he worked out that the Earth was round. Not true. By the time Columbus set off on his voyage in 1492, people had known the Earth was round for two millennia. There's probably more flat Earthers now than there were in the 15th century. God bless the internet.
The reason Columbus discovered America is not that he'd worked out that the Earth was round. The reason is that he massively underestimated the size of the planet. They were right to laugh at him. He was wrong. But he took that wrongness, he persuaded 90 other men to get into three boats smaller than the size of this stage, and sail into the unknown. And he persuaded Queen Isabella of Castile and King Ferdinand of Aragon to fund his voyage.
The moral of the story is, it doesn't matter how wrong you are as long as you've got rich friends.
That's not the moral of the story. The moral of the story is, the history of our civilization was not made by people who always got everything right. It was made by people who'd made mistakes too. It was made by people who dared to believe that they could solve the problems they faced. The story of the West is a story of audacity.
The big debates of the last decade, the culture war, the polarization, are about one thing and one thing only: the future. There are people like us in this room who believe that our future is to be prosperous, powerful and influential. We are the majority. But there are also some people whose brains have been broken by an excess of education, who believe that our history is evil. That we do not deserve to be great, we do not deserve to be powerful, that we must be punished for the sins of our ancestors. To them, our past is abominable, our present must be spent apologizing, and our future is managed decline.
My message to those people is simple: how dare you. You will not steal my son's dreams with your empty words.
But Jordan is right, we need a positive message too. So here it is: from the dawn of time, human beings have had to work to make the world a better place. We captured the mystery of fire. We invented the wheel. Today we build buildings that would shock and awe almost every human being that has ever lived. We split the atom, we spliced the genome and we connected the world through microcomputers that fit in our pockets, that allow us to do amazing amazing things.
This morning, I destroyed someone on Twitter with facts and logic from the toilet. It's magic! Remember your grandparents? Remember them? If I could go back in time and transport the grandparents of your grandparents into this room, just four generations ago, they would think they'd been abducted by aliens. that's the progress we've made. We haven't made that progress by whining and acting like victims. We've made that progress by unleashing the creativity and talent of people like us here in this room.
But I do think we've forgotten what adventure is. Being adventurous is not ordering extra-spicy chicken at Nando's. Wrong reference for this room. Let me try again. Being adventurous is not ordering extra-spicy chicken from your personal chef.
When Columbus and his men got on those boats and took a journey into the unknown, they sailed to certain death. You know why? It's not because they were braver than you and I, it's because they knew something we forgotten: all death is certain. And so I say to our friends in the world of business, you've made your fortunes by maximizing your returns on your investments. We are in the fight of our lives. there is no greater return on your investment than to protect and preserve our civilization.
And so I invite you to follow in the footsteps of Elon Musk and Paul Marshall and Ben Delo and many of you here who are using your fortunes for the betterment of humanity.
I say to our friends in the media: truth matters! We are in the fight of our lives. There is more to life than clicks and downloads. Let’s move beyond the culture war where all we do is bat away the litany of slanderous allegations about our history. Let’s set the agenda. Let’s remind our fellow citizens why we are where we are. Let’s remind them that we are the most tolerant, open and welcoming societies in the history of the world. We’re not embarrassed about our past, we’re proud of it.
And to my colleagues in new media especially I say this. The legacy media is dying for a reason. They cannot be saved, they cannot be reformed. Let’s stop complaining about them and start building the media empires of the future ourselves. We have everything we need. We’ve even got rich friends now.
I say to our friends in education and academia: I understand that many of you feel like the French Resistance or Soviet partisans, stuck behind enemy lines, undermanned and out gunned. And you’re right, we are in the fight of our lives. So keep fighting for every young mind you can. It will be worth it.
And finally, I say to our friends in politics. Many of you here are conservatives. I’m not, I look terrible in tweed. That’s why I identify as politically non-binary. But I can tell you conservatives something. You will never get young people to want to conserve a society and an economy that is not working for them. We will not overcome Woke nihilism as long as young people are locked out of the housing market, unable to pair up, unable to have kids, unable to plan for the future.
I know it’s difficult, and I know that whoever solves the housing crisis may well pay the price at the ballot box. This is true of many pressing issues too, or at least you think it is. But you did not get into politics to get re-elected. You got into politics to make a difference.
We are in the fight of our lives. And if courage means anything it means doing the right thing and being willing to take the punishment if you have to. Let me say it again: all death is certain. We do not get to choose whether we live or die. We only get to choose whether we live before we die. Thank you very much.
Source: youtube.com
Avatar

By: Douglas Murray

Published: Apr 30, 2022

There are many ways to fracture a people. But one of the best is to destroy all the remaining ties that bind them. To persuade them that to the extent they have anything of their own, it is not very special, and in the final analysis, hardly worth preserving. This is a process that has gone on across the western world for over a generation: a remorseless, daily assault on everything that most of us were brought up to believe was good about ourselves.
Take our national heroes – the people who used to form the epicentre of our feelings of national pride. Twenty years ago, Winston Churchill easily won the BBC’s competition to find out who the nation thought to be the Greatest Briton. Today whenever the BBC runs a piece about Churchill it includes the ‘case for the prosecution’: a set of tendentious and fallacious arguments now frequently made against him. This has consequences. When the outburst of iconoclasm began in the summer of 2020 after the murder of George Floyd, Churchill’s statue was one of the first to be assaulted. Indeed it was attacked so often that the statue in Parliament Square was boxed up, and only got unboxed when the French President arrived in London for the day.
It isn’t just Churchill who gets this treatment. Almost everyone in our history does. Again and again, largely due to importing some of the worst ideas in modern American life, we are told that we need to scour our past and purge whatever fails to satisfy our current urges.
Two years ago the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, set up a Robespierrean ‘Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm’: a commission made up of people who all seem to share a wholly negative view of these islands, and one of whom was known for having once shouted at Her Majesty the Queen. And yet that commission is meant to decide what we are allowed to keep of our history. And not only what should come down, but what should go up in its place. Among the suggestions for more appropriate modern statuary are a memorial to the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, a tribute to the Windrush generation and a new National Museum of Slavery. Only last week it transpired that a London council is planning to rebrand William Gladstone Park, because the great prime minister’s family stands accused of benefiting from the slave trade. The front-runners for alternative names for the place include Diane Abbott Park.
Where once our national story was one of pride and heroism it has come to be looked at solely through the reductive, simplistic lens of racism, slavery and colonialism. Our civil servants and public appointees must demonstrate a commitment to ‘Diversity, Inclusion and Equity’ in order even to be allowed to work. Every political institution, including the House of Lords, is suffused with the same new dogma. Likewise every cultural institution, from the National Trust and Kew Gardens to the British Library, Tate and Globe theatre has decided to ‘decolonise’ – which means stripping us of our history or reframing it in an implacably negative light.
All of this has come across our culture like a flood – in the main, precisely because it is imported from America, where a cultural revolution is under way which consists of an assault on all of the foundations of the country. This includes a project of the New York Times which seeks to move the founding date of the American Republic from 1776 to 1619: the year in question being when slaves were first brought into the country. The non-historian who led this sloppy effort has been awarded a Pulitzer prize and chairs at American universities for her efforts. The attempt, like the one that’s going on in Britain, is to pretend that our nations were born in sin, everyone else into Edenic innocence.
Anybody found guilty of living in American history is torn down in a similarly remorseless way, from Christopher Columbus to Theodore Roosevelt. Absolutely no one is safe. The Founding Fathers have been rewritten. A couple of generations back, few Americans may have known that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Today it is almost the only thing anyone knows about him. Again, this has consequences. Last autumn the statue of Jefferson that had stood in New York City Hall since 1833 was ignominiously removed, boxed up and wheeled out the back door. According to one council member Jefferson no longer represents US ‘values’.
It is hard to think of anyone from two centuries ago who would. But in the relentless war on everything to do with western history at least the tactics are now clear. Aristotle and Plato have been denounced for not having 2022’s views on race. Similarly all the Enlightenment philosophers, so that David Hume’s name has come off buildings in Scotland. The charges are always the same: having views not exactly in line with those of the 21st century, being complicit in the slave trade, being complicit in colonialism. Or just being alive while these things were going on. When the evidence isn’t there, the anti-western ‘scholars’ of our day have shown themselves perfectly willing simply to invent it.
What are the effects of this? Among much else, it is not remotely clear why societies which have such terrible pasts should ever rouse themselves to do anything in the present. Last year the US Ambassador to the United Nations used the occasion of the UN’s International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to denounce America for its ‘original sin’. She talked about the killing of George Floyd and presented a recent shooting at a spa (which had nothing to do with race) as an example of the ongoing racism in America. Towards the end of her speech, in passing, she remembered to mention the internment of around one million Uighur Muslims by the Chinese Communist party. Funnily enough, China’s representative was up next. ‘In an exceptional case’ the Chinese Communist representative said furiously, the American had actually ‘admitted to her country’s ignoble human rights record’, and so she had no right ‘to get on a high horse and tell other countries what to do’.
Until Russia invaded Ukraine in February this was the default presumption of the competitors and opponents of the western powers: that our countries had so deracinated themselves, so scourged themselves for historic sins and so denuded themselves of any decent approach towards their own history that they were unlikely to summon up the courage to stand up for themselves, let alone for their allies.
In fact Vladimir Putin’s war has done something to revive a sense of purpose and solidarity in the West. In one swoop the 30-year-old question about the point of Nato has been answered. When Sweden and other countries join the alliance later this year it will be cemented further. Even countries such as Germany have shown themselves willing to do highly unusual things, like actually spend money on defence now a real threat has re-emerged in their neighbourhood.
But the idea that Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine will solve the West’s problems or clarify our minds already looks like a forlorn hope. In a poll taken last month almost half of Americans said that if their country was invaded as Ukraine’s has been they would flee the country and not stay around and fight. Worst was that among 18- to 34-year-olds only 45 per cent said they would remain and fight, while 48 per cent said they would flee.
But why would they not? Who would stay and fight for a country that you have been told is rotten from the start, has no legitimate heroes and is riddled through even in the present day by ‘white supremacy’ and ‘institutional racism’? It is the same in other countries. The Europeans may have remembered that you have to spend money if you want to be able to defend yourselves. But more important still is to have a sense that you have something that is worth defending.
Putin, the Chinese Communist party and others have looked at the West in recent years and seen these increasingly fractious, riven and self-lacerating societies. Each has done what they can both online and off to exacerbate this tendency. They think we are awful and irredeemable, and they are delighted if large swathes of our populations and political and cultural figures agree with them. Just last week one of the CCP’s propaganda papers pumped an image around Twitter of Uncle Sam behind the Oval Office desk, surrounded by corpses. The caption accused America of racism and family separations at the border. Perhaps the people of Xinjiang province have something to say about the sincerity of that attack.
Of course, unity is not the only thing you need in a nation, as Putin has demonstrated. But it’s not nothing either, as President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian people have shown. The key question any country and any culture has to answer is whether it wants to keep going. Most of the western powers have been told in recent years that we should keep going in order to find our way to greater equity, equality, diversity and a whole pile of other meaningless guff, including ‘diversity’: an entirely anti-western concept from its foundations.
The war in Ukraine may be just the first test of the western alliance. It is clear that in the 21st century the CCP is going to present a much more substantial challenge than Putin ever could. Will the West be willing to rise to that challenge? Only if we regain the sense that we have something worth preserving. And the knowledge we had in the Cold War that free western societies deserve to win out, not because it is in our interests to do so, but because we are better than the alternatives.
How some people will shudder at the idea of even expressing that. But it is true. It is why the countries that most beat themselves up about their pasts are the countries that the world most wants to come to. We must be doing something right today, which means we have must have done something right in our past. The rest of the world recognises that fact by its footfall. It is time we started to recognise that truth ourselves.

==

People actually risk their lives for the opportunity to participate in the western tradition. While smoothbrains who, by accident of birth, are fortunate to be able to take living there for granted, never have to contemplate the stories of the former group, and so say stupid things like "well, we're no better than [theocratic regime]/[communist dictatorship]/[poverty-stricken hellhole]."

The irony of course is that this sort of self-critique and self-flagellation is only possible among western countries. In any other social arrangement it would be, at best, ignored, at worst, grounds for eliminating you from it.

Source: archive.is
Avatar
There is one other possibility to explain the oddity of the Enlightenment thinkers ending up so prominently in the firing line of our era. And that is this: The European Enlightenments were the greatest leap forward for the concept of objective truth. The project that Hume and others worked away on was to ground an understanding of the world in verifiable fact. Miracles and other phenomena that had been a normal part of the world of ideas before their era suddenly lost all their footholds. The age of reason did not produce the age of Aquarius, but it put claims that were ungrounded in fact on the back foot for the best part of two centuries.
By contrast, what has been worked away at in recent years has been a project in which verifiable truth is cast out. In its place comes that great Oprah-ism: “my truth.” The idea that I have “my truth” and you have yours makes the very idea of objective truth redundant. It says that a thing becomes so because I feel it to be so or say that it is so. At its most extreme, it is a reversion to a form of magical thinking. Precisely the thinking that the Enlightenment thinkers chased out.
And perhaps that is why the Enlightenment thinkers have become such a focus for assault. Because the system they set up is antithetical to the system that is being constructed today: a system entirely opposed to the idea of rationalism and objective truth; a system dedicated to sweeping away everyone from the past as well as the present who does not bow down to the great god of the present: “me.”
-- Douglas Murray, “The War on the West”

In the pre-Enlightenment times, the Word of God was authoritative. How he could know was through divine wisdom, inaccessible to no one. God knew everything, and his word was not to be questioned or doubted. 

As we lurch towards the risk of a post-Enlightenment era, the Word of Me becomes authoritative. How “Me” could know is through “lived experience,” inaccessible to no one else. The subjective is the way to know everything, and “my truth” is not to be questioned or doubted.

This is not progress, this is regression.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net