Skip to main content

"Thirty Years War insurance"

 From a Face Book post by Thomas Eastmond.

Thinking about this:
(Note after unpacking thoughts: “TL/DR seems inadequate here. Start your own blog, guy.”)
The Western liberal tradition, with its principles of tolerance and freedom of thought and conscience, is almost four centuries old.
It first developed as, basically, “Thirty Years War insurance.”*
The West didn’t invent tolerance (something new and revolutionary in human history, whose rule ever since we were roaming the prehistoric plains had been “whatever you do, don’t talk back to the alpha male/headman/king” or he’ll get mad and smack you with a club”) because a bunch of unusually decent and smart people sat down and decided to reinvent the world. It happened because the particular social, cultural, geographical (Jared Diamond isn’t *all* wrong) and technological circumstances of seventeenth-century Europe has gotten people recognizing that continuing with the old model posed a real risk of actual, not rhetorical civilizational suicide.
After 1618-1648, European thinkers didn’t have to do any more complicated thinking than arithmetic: “If we do that just two more times, mathematically, we’ll all be dead.”
So - starting out slowly, and then progressing steadily over the following centuries - we developed an ideology proposing that where a man prays or how he thinks “neither picks our pocket or breaks our leg.” “Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; whoever knew Truth put to the worse, in a fair and open encounter?”, to use John Milton’s classic formulation. We adopted the creed that the best answer to bad thinking was exposure to good thinking.
We no longer had to try and resolve controversies about transubstantiation, predestination, and the designated hitter rule (heresy!) with pike and shot.
So people who remain committed to the Western liberal tradition - and aren’t taking an adolescent civilizationally Oedipal dump on it as a hypocritical bag of “the master’s tools” serving mainly to prop up “the master’s house” — whether they’re consciously aware of their mental framework’s full background, they benefit from all the hard-learned lessons that tradition has incorporated.
Woke supremacism doesn’t have that.
It’s both a new idea — at least in its present incarnation, which (by its own advocates’ admission) rejects “equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law” — and an ancient one: “Our people are threatened. Therefore, we may resist our enemies by any means necessary.”
New or old, I don’t think Woke’s acolytes ever learned (my outstanding high school history teachers couldn’t be everywhere) or remember, why tolerance was invented in the first place.
They’ve never internalized the hard lessons that taught us why “Error has no rights” is such a dangerous, deadly doctrine. Or why “good” people might want to be careful imposing their “goodness” on those who understand the Good differently.
Liberal tolerance is not a moral luxury, meant to make us feel good about ourselves or display our decency like peacock feathers. It’s Thirty Years War insurance. It’s what keeps the cannons and war hammers from coming out.
They don’t get this. And so they have no limiting principle to what they are willing to do to their enemies. Their fundamental premises (i.e., that disparate outcomes between different ethnic groups can only result from invidious discrimination) are so patently false that they present the danger that false creeds always do:
“If what we all know to lie at the end of the Inevitable Arc of History isn’t coming to pass, it can only because we aren’t striving hard enough towards it, and being ruthless enough in crushing our enemies. We shall redouble our efforts!”
Human nature being what it is, cultists almost always double down rather than reconsider their cherished beliefs.
But neither does our human nature like to have to consider the possibility that we’re becoming moral monsters. So it’s natural, again, that we deny and minimize what we’re doing.
And that guarantees we’re even less likely to ask “are we the baddies?” and stop our march to the abyss.
That’s Woke’s great danger - and also its great weakness. Because it always needs an enemy, and (just like criminals tend to victimize not the wealthy across town, but their immediate neighbors), the most convenient targets of the Woke — acolytes of a cult that germinated in hothouse environments like academia and journalism — are people within those environments who are marginally less radical. This is how Bret Weinstein got the chop, and Bari Weiss, and any number of other people who thought they were safely progressive.
Inevitably, this kind of revolution ultimately ends with Robespierre getting his own head lopped off in the reign of terror he inaugurated. (See image.)
So one way or the other, Woke is not going to endure. It *will* destroy itself in the long run. The only touchy part will be to ensure that what follows isn’t Napoleon — that the backlash to Woke illiberalism isn’t an equal and opposite illiberalism.
And that’s where conservatives need to make sure they know what they’re to be conserving, and not focus too much on just “owning the libs.”
*”Liberalism is a technology for preventing civil war. It was forged in the fires of Hell – the horrors of the endless seventeenth century religious wars. For a hundred years, Europe tore itself apart in some of the most brutal ways imaginable – until finally, from the burning wreckage, we drew forth this amazing piece of alien machinery. A machine that, when tuned just right, let people live together peacefully without doing the ‘kill people for being Protestant’ thing.” — Scott Alexander



Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.


It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism,

What You Know That Isn't So

  The saying goes like this, It's not what you *don't* know that is going to trip you up, it's what you know that isn't so. I believe that the first lady might possibly have been feigning helplessness, just a little bit.  She already had concept art and visuals, so I think she'll be okay.   But someone might truly be so new that they know nothing about science fiction as a genre or how it works in the world.  That person, the truly "new" person, might not realize that the second lady, no matter how assured she seems to be that she's passing on vital Wisdom, is wrong. So lets unwrap her backpack a little (to steal a metaphor). Stories about space pirates are Space Opera, generally.  "Soft" science in science fiction usually refers to sociology or psychology, social "science".  A story about space pirates might be "soft".  But that's picking nits.  The first big boo-boo is this: "not as popular *because* it is women