I don’t think that “wearing the skin of the civilisation they have killed” is the best metaphor for what the woke are doing to the West. In that image, only the outer appearance of the former person remains, while the strength and capabilities are those of the person who killed him.
A better metaphor for wokeness would be parasitic infection. This infection does not immediately kill or even weaken its host, but it affects the host’s mind, altering its behavior to serve the goals of the parasite. Toxoplasma gondii does not simply paralyze or kill the mice that it infects. On the contrary, it temporarily increases their powers, in a sense, by removing their fear. But their new boldness does not help the mice survive and reproduce. It leads them to be eaten by cats, in which T. gondii reproduces.
Like infected mice, the brave Ukrainian soldiers and smart Raytheon engineers have not been weakened so much as subverted. They retain all of their abilities, for now, but those abilities have been redirected towards goals that will advance wokeness and destroy them.
Since the missiles began falling, the favored woke categories have not featured prominently at the front lines. We’ve seen many viral photos of armed women in combat fatigues, but little evidence that they’re doing much of the shooting. The ‘new Ukrainians’ from India and Africa fled immediately, some complaining of racism and ridiculing the idea that they might stay and fight. Millions of women and children left, while the native-born men stayed. FtM transgenders dug out their old nail polish at the border. Not exactly fodder for a Netflix show.
If the Ukrainians win this war, the most probable outcome will be their full integration into NATO, the EU, and the cultural West. That will result in their cultural degradation and, eventually, their physical elimination as a group due to mass immigration.
The new ‘oikophobia’ of the Right is hatred of the parasite, not of the host it has infected and will destroy.
'Toxoplasma gondii does not simply paralyze or kill the mice that it infects. On the contrary, it temporarily increases their powers, in a sense, by removing their fear. But their new boldness does not help the mice survive and reproduce. It leads them to be eaten by cats, in which T. gondii reproduces.' that is a good analogy
Putin, for his many flaws and petty tyranny and astonishing willingness and evil in starting an unprovoked war, does have one aspect that is worth noticing, and it's his staunch support for the concept of a strong Russia. Nationalistic? Patriotic? When I lived in Dubai I had several Russian friends and even back in those days (circa 2010-2016) Putin was already a budding persona non grata in the West and issues like the suppression of gay rights would periodically surface in Western media. The Russians I knew were enlightened people by the standards of Russia and while they decried the crackdown on gay rights, at the same time they openly respected Putin because "he made Russia feel strong and important again." And that's remarkably telling. If you're, say, 40, you would have been born in 1980s Russia, which was still a recognizable power and force in the world, only to see the sheer deprivation and embarrassment of the 1990s collapse, which must have been utterly demoralizing. Under Putin, Russia did regain some of her old sense of prestige and power (sort of), and, yes, greater prosperity. The Russians don't forget that either.
There's certainly an element of attraction to the strongman who proclaims to defend the traditions and history of your culture, no matter how attracted you may be to a more modern or even progressive environment. I saw this sentiment all over the Middle East, for example. The progressive Arabs always still retained respect for people who defended the old ways of doing things, aka their history and lineage.
The Western woke progressives are unique in that they don't cherish the history of the west and have little interest in defending the "old ways" and respecting the old histories and myths and creeds. It's not surprising to see the conservatives increasingly angry at the progressives, and when the progressives are in power, hostile to the institutions and governments controlled by the progressives. They've lost any meaningful ownership or stake in their own societies and must feel adrift. I can see why some of them would find a strongman like Putin impressive and admirable.
This is where this article doesn't make much sense. If we are considering the real "Oikophobes," is it the people who do not ever miss an opportunity to express and take appropriate action on their white-hot loathing of the home population and its history, or is it the people who advocate for American neutrality in eastern European conflicts? Ukraine is not my home, and we have no formal treaty obligations to defend Ukraine. We have many, many treaty obligations to defend other countries, and scarce resources with which that defense must be provisioned. Indeed, a potential nuclear war with Russia is threatening to security of the homeland, and much else besides.
I agree. I've read various people, both left and right (and Tucker Carlson would be a right wing example, but Freddie DeBoer with his excellent substack is a left wing example), talk frankly about how the US did meddle in Ukraine. Fair or not? Did the US make promises, real or only implied, that it forgot as administrations came and went and Ukraine is very much a provincial backwater with the typical home-grown corruption of provincial backwaters. And the US also has a history of invading other countries (cough, cough, Iraq). And the US has clear doctrines telling the rest of the world not to meddle in the Western Hemisphere, except, of course, for the US.
Talking about these is not tantamount to justifying or apologizing for Putin. But this sudden rush to morality we saw in the last few weeks is somewhat at odds with past US history and suggests an element of double standards at play. I do think that it is important in a liberal democracy that we like to think we are, we should be allowed to have these kinds of frank discussions without resorting to the base cries of treason.
I will confess that in the build-up to the conflict, I found myself sympathizing a bit too much with Bill Haydon from Tinker Tailor. "Don't you see, George? The West has become so decadent.... It was an aesthetic judgment as much as anything...."
I had to cut this out for space but I did wonder: Yet there are people who do believe Europe is defined by progressive values like gay rights. It would be like someone in Rome in 400AD saying that Roman identity was defined by adherence to the Hebrew God. Which would be news to those Romans who had worshipped the gods of their ancestors for a thousand years, but it would become true.
On a similar theme I had a conversation, ahem, thinly veiled argument, with someone who is an active member of a once socially prominent Episcopalian church that now proudly flies the rainbow and BLM flags outside its handsome gothic sanctuary built at the height of 19th century confidence. A staunch progressive she was saying she didn't understand why any Christian would vote for the Republicans and mocked the evangelical conservatives and their obsession with abortion rights. When I was allowed to speak I commented that evangelical, Republican supporting Christians are much more in tune with the theology and history of Christianity going back across 2,000 years than modern progressive congregations whose interpretation of the Christian faith seems to be summarized by just one concept: love everyone (albeit in theory!), and that had the wealthy 19th century Episcopalians who built her church and endowed it with the funds that still pay for its maintenance had known what was to happen to the Episcopalian church a century later, they'd not have donated a single penny. It did swiftly end the conversation and she may never look at me again in the same way, although I suspect more likely is that the conversation will be memory-holed and forgotten as inconvenient.
In short, even Christianity is being redefined and its history airbrushed as part of the great awokening. Aspects of "woke" Christianity I can admire and respect - its tolerance and openness to a greater range of people, but even I admit there's an element of decadence about it too. The woke takeover of the denominations parallels the dramatic collapse in membership and attendance, which accelerates the decline of faith as institutions in Western society.
That's the basis for the sanctions against Poland and Hungary, that their anti-gay laws violate the EU constitution. Dogmatic imposition of gay rights has been interpreted as fundamental to the EU and integral to its administration. If the country does not grant the acronym people special rights there is no place for the country in the EU.
I don’t think that “wearing the skin of the civilisation they have killed” is the best metaphor for what the woke are doing to the West. In that image, only the outer appearance of the former person remains, while the strength and capabilities are those of the person who killed him.
A better metaphor for wokeness would be parasitic infection. This infection does not immediately kill or even weaken its host, but it affects the host’s mind, altering its behavior to serve the goals of the parasite. Toxoplasma gondii does not simply paralyze or kill the mice that it infects. On the contrary, it temporarily increases their powers, in a sense, by removing their fear. But their new boldness does not help the mice survive and reproduce. It leads them to be eaten by cats, in which T. gondii reproduces.
Like infected mice, the brave Ukrainian soldiers and smart Raytheon engineers have not been weakened so much as subverted. They retain all of their abilities, for now, but those abilities have been redirected towards goals that will advance wokeness and destroy them.
Since the missiles began falling, the favored woke categories have not featured prominently at the front lines. We’ve seen many viral photos of armed women in combat fatigues, but little evidence that they’re doing much of the shooting. The ‘new Ukrainians’ from India and Africa fled immediately, some complaining of racism and ridiculing the idea that they might stay and fight. Millions of women and children left, while the native-born men stayed. FtM transgenders dug out their old nail polish at the border. Not exactly fodder for a Netflix show.
If the Ukrainians win this war, the most probable outcome will be their full integration into NATO, the EU, and the cultural West. That will result in their cultural degradation and, eventually, their physical elimination as a group due to mass immigration.
The new ‘oikophobia’ of the Right is hatred of the parasite, not of the host it has infected and will destroy.
'Toxoplasma gondii does not simply paralyze or kill the mice that it infects. On the contrary, it temporarily increases their powers, in a sense, by removing their fear. But their new boldness does not help the mice survive and reproduce. It leads them to be eaten by cats, in which T. gondii reproduces.' that is a good analogy
Putin, for his many flaws and petty tyranny and astonishing willingness and evil in starting an unprovoked war, does have one aspect that is worth noticing, and it's his staunch support for the concept of a strong Russia. Nationalistic? Patriotic? When I lived in Dubai I had several Russian friends and even back in those days (circa 2010-2016) Putin was already a budding persona non grata in the West and issues like the suppression of gay rights would periodically surface in Western media. The Russians I knew were enlightened people by the standards of Russia and while they decried the crackdown on gay rights, at the same time they openly respected Putin because "he made Russia feel strong and important again." And that's remarkably telling. If you're, say, 40, you would have been born in 1980s Russia, which was still a recognizable power and force in the world, only to see the sheer deprivation and embarrassment of the 1990s collapse, which must have been utterly demoralizing. Under Putin, Russia did regain some of her old sense of prestige and power (sort of), and, yes, greater prosperity. The Russians don't forget that either.
There's certainly an element of attraction to the strongman who proclaims to defend the traditions and history of your culture, no matter how attracted you may be to a more modern or even progressive environment. I saw this sentiment all over the Middle East, for example. The progressive Arabs always still retained respect for people who defended the old ways of doing things, aka their history and lineage.
The Western woke progressives are unique in that they don't cherish the history of the west and have little interest in defending the "old ways" and respecting the old histories and myths and creeds. It's not surprising to see the conservatives increasingly angry at the progressives, and when the progressives are in power, hostile to the institutions and governments controlled by the progressives. They've lost any meaningful ownership or stake in their own societies and must feel adrift. I can see why some of them would find a strongman like Putin impressive and admirable.
This is where this article doesn't make much sense. If we are considering the real "Oikophobes," is it the people who do not ever miss an opportunity to express and take appropriate action on their white-hot loathing of the home population and its history, or is it the people who advocate for American neutrality in eastern European conflicts? Ukraine is not my home, and we have no formal treaty obligations to defend Ukraine. We have many, many treaty obligations to defend other countries, and scarce resources with which that defense must be provisioned. Indeed, a potential nuclear war with Russia is threatening to security of the homeland, and much else besides.
I agree. I've read various people, both left and right (and Tucker Carlson would be a right wing example, but Freddie DeBoer with his excellent substack is a left wing example), talk frankly about how the US did meddle in Ukraine. Fair or not? Did the US make promises, real or only implied, that it forgot as administrations came and went and Ukraine is very much a provincial backwater with the typical home-grown corruption of provincial backwaters. And the US also has a history of invading other countries (cough, cough, Iraq). And the US has clear doctrines telling the rest of the world not to meddle in the Western Hemisphere, except, of course, for the US.
Talking about these is not tantamount to justifying or apologizing for Putin. But this sudden rush to morality we saw in the last few weeks is somewhat at odds with past US history and suggests an element of double standards at play. I do think that it is important in a liberal democracy that we like to think we are, we should be allowed to have these kinds of frank discussions without resorting to the base cries of treason.
Keep in mind that those who actually fight America's wars are the children of, and often themselves are, "DEPLORABLES" in the Hillary Clinton sense.
I will confess that in the build-up to the conflict, I found myself sympathizing a bit too much with Bill Haydon from Tinker Tailor. "Don't you see, George? The West has become so decadent.... It was an aesthetic judgment as much as anything...."
I had to cut this out for space but I did wonder: Yet there are people who do believe Europe is defined by progressive values like gay rights. It would be like someone in Rome in 400AD saying that Roman identity was defined by adherence to the Hebrew God. Which would be news to those Romans who had worshipped the gods of their ancestors for a thousand years, but it would become true.
Think I probably spend too much time thinking about the fall of Rome. Can't be healthy
On a similar theme I had a conversation, ahem, thinly veiled argument, with someone who is an active member of a once socially prominent Episcopalian church that now proudly flies the rainbow and BLM flags outside its handsome gothic sanctuary built at the height of 19th century confidence. A staunch progressive she was saying she didn't understand why any Christian would vote for the Republicans and mocked the evangelical conservatives and their obsession with abortion rights. When I was allowed to speak I commented that evangelical, Republican supporting Christians are much more in tune with the theology and history of Christianity going back across 2,000 years than modern progressive congregations whose interpretation of the Christian faith seems to be summarized by just one concept: love everyone (albeit in theory!), and that had the wealthy 19th century Episcopalians who built her church and endowed it with the funds that still pay for its maintenance had known what was to happen to the Episcopalian church a century later, they'd not have donated a single penny. It did swiftly end the conversation and she may never look at me again in the same way, although I suspect more likely is that the conversation will be memory-holed and forgotten as inconvenient.
In short, even Christianity is being redefined and its history airbrushed as part of the great awokening. Aspects of "woke" Christianity I can admire and respect - its tolerance and openness to a greater range of people, but even I admit there's an element of decadence about it too. The woke takeover of the denominations parallels the dramatic collapse in membership and attendance, which accelerates the decline of faith as institutions in Western society.
That's the basis for the sanctions against Poland and Hungary, that their anti-gay laws violate the EU constitution. Dogmatic imposition of gay rights has been interpreted as fundamental to the EU and integral to its administration. If the country does not grant the acronym people special rights there is no place for the country in the EU.
yes. the interesting question is if a wider sanction, backed by American firms, is used against either