3 ms·
I think these paragraphs from the "Abandoning The Ship of State" section summarize it fairly well. There is a deep comedy to this sort of signaling. Only aroun
by DavidVoid 7y ago
I think these paragraphs from the "Abandoning The Ship of State" section summarize it fairly well.
There is a deep comedy to this sort of signaling. Only around 2% of the student body was in the bottom 20% of American society, and yet extremely wealthy Singaporean students who had spent just a few years in America marched in the street and referred to themselves as “people of color.” People’s experiences were ignored when they volunteered information that countered the main narrative, because the surface-level debate wasn’t the point. The point was to signal that you were with the program. Only a select and secret group of student “leaders”—who were already savvy enough to engage comfortably with hierarchy—were invited in to chat with administrators.
Shouting from the rooftops that “They aren’t doing enough!” is much easier than following any traditional system of elite social norms and duties, let alone carefully re-engineering that system to reestablish order in a time of growing crisis.
Western elites are not comfortable with their place in society and the responsibilities that come with it, and realize that there are deep structural problems with the old systems of coordination. But lacking the capacity for an orderly restructuring, or even a diagnosis of problems and needs, we dive deeper into a chaotic ideological mode of coordination that sweeps away the old structures.
When you live with this mindset, what you end up with is not an establishment where a woke upper class rallies and advocates for the rights of minorities, the poor, and underprivileged groups. What you have is a blind and self-righteous upper class that becomes structurally unable to take coordinated responsibility. You get stuck in an ideological mode of coordination, where no one can speak the truth to correct collective mistakes and overreaches without losing position.
This ideology is promulgated and advertised by universities, but it doesn’t start or stop at universities. All the fundraisers. All the corporate events. The Oscars. Let’s take down the Man. They say this in front of their PowerPoints. They clink champagne glasses. Let’s take down the Man! But there is no real spirit of revolution in these words. It is all in the language they understand—polite and clean, because it isn’t really real. It is a performative spectacle about their own morale and guilt.
If you were the ruler while everything was burning around you, and you didn’t know what to do, what would you do? You would deny that you are in charge. And you would recuperate the growing discontented masses into your own power base, so that things stay comfortable for you.
- jadbox 7y agoAt a higher meta US-political level, this is probably the best criticism of the Left: "all talk without the required hard change- so that to gain power/status." ...and of the Right: "rooting into a comfortable position to deflect, avoid, blame, deny the responsibility to solve structural issues, in order to capitalize on existing power." Until we can remove the power incentives and 'take money out of politics', it'll be an extremely uphill problem to address large systematic changes on either sides. More than ever, people should stop treating people in government as celebrities, but as they are, important civil servants of the people to do the tasks that their job demands. Until then, it's a dog and pony show. Even trying to remove the corrupt to "drain the swamp" will be as futile as draining grains of sand at the beach, if you do not first address your terrain (the structure).
- gaze 7y agoHere's at least part of where things fall apart... "What you have is a blind and self-righteous upper class that becomes structurally unable to take coordinated responsibility." The rich have never "taken responsibility." The rich are rich mostly due to exploitative practices. Yes, the rich cosplay as poor to shirk that responsibility. The author wants a return to some time when Yale made good elites that lead properly... but the elites have never lead in a "good way." It's all just business as usual. I haven't fully dissected this all. The author has written for the weekly standard. In particular, articles praising Jordan Peterson. That should clue you into their views.