The degree to which you have retained all of the reading and research that you have obviously done is extraordinary. Not very many people are at your level in this regard. Hopefully more people like Nina and Eric Kaufmann are willing to come and debate/discuss these kinds of issues. Otherwise it will be hard to have thought provoking and well reasoned discussions.
The problem with wokeness is that it distributes oppression poi ts irrationally,if the millionaire daughter of Obama declares herself a nonbinaty 2spirit trans lesbian her needs are elevated above the starving homeless dude dying on the streets,because she shares characteristics with people who suffer. Coleman hugh supports redistribution,just not no racial basis,yet ypu wouldn't call him a leftist. Men live 6 yrs less on average and make 98% of the deaths from working accidents,yet leftists insist health care discriminates against women cuz they don't volunteer as often to have accurate treatment results. Limting group disparities shouldn't trample honesty,rationality and the rile of law. And if woke academics can convince the youth to spend resources for illegal immigrants sex changes,I don't see why can't tech right bros can't satisfy the religious hole by offering Mars colonization,or the EAs offering malaria nets for Africa.The youth are malleable we just need more Kaufmans and Scott Alexander's and Less Judith Butlers and Di Angelo's. Wokes dominate cuz they were relentless,not because their ideas were persuasive,and the new gen intellectuals have to learn from their strengths
We can just return to the founding religion: americanism, great man worship.
America was and is a settler nation. We will venerate the settler type. The general, the pioneer, the warrior (Andrew Jackson, Douglas Macarthur etc). In the modern age we can give it a high tech twist, worshipping the business magnate or the space entrepreneur.
Only a very small % of the population genuinely believes in egalitarianism to their core. Im not sure why returning to a religion of Americanism or great man worship is impossible.
Perhaps a leftist civil religion is necessary to fulfill chandala slave morality impulses that will always exist among a very unsavory segment of the population. I am sure these can be channeled in less destructive ways
We can have a civil religion worshipping great man of war, industry, science etc. that religion would be implicitly white supremacist because most great men are european.
Hello Deep, I am a big fan of this article. I just had one question that I was wondering if you could answer. You mention that “[t]here is a moral firewall which is preventing HBD from winning the argument at the scale of real power.” Do you think this firewall arises as a result of the current political situation, due to the current multi-ethnic ruling class, or is there simply an innate human aversion to racism? Thanks. Keep up the good work.
You spent a lot of time making a lot of good points and then gave a really bad and incomplete definition of what religon is. Way more involved than just 'who we are and where we come from'. You should into the writings and works of Jamie Wheal — his book Recapture The Rapture is a starting point.
I agree that wokeness is quasi-religious in nature and that a religious claim demands a religious response. You can't beat a powerful narrative, however false and nonsensical, with no narrative at all.
However, it's at best a quasi-religion. It doesn't do a great job at actually providing deep human meaning in the way that traditional religions do. And so my bet is still on them in the long run. Of course, the fertility differences between the religious and the secular trend in this direction too.
I think it's more than semantic though. Religion provides community. Wokeism provides "communities" that aren't real communities at all. Communities of colour, of sexual orientation and so on. It doesn't create meaningful human connection of any sort. Sports clubs do a better job of that than woke beliefs do. Woke beliefs just seem to wreck people's mental health without any obvious benefits.
Leftists have political communities. Calling them "not real" or "not meaningful" is just an assertion. Wokeness produced the greatest protest movements of all time. Sports club did jack shit. Conservatives are more mentally ill, and will produce an article on that in the coming weeks.
I’m not sure that the long centuries of evolution that shaped religions millennia ago are a good model for how wokeness will evolve. Given how radically different the information environment is now relative to ancient history, imo the proliferation of wokeness is more similar to the spread of view that “it’s wrong to eat pineapple on pizza”, and other points of contestation online that are really about values. I also wonder how you think this civic religion would deal with your own thesis that the 22nd century will be the most racist century ever. Is there no better solution to our current juncture than a full societal investment in a perpetually escalating war that you think we’ll lose ground on for over a century? Might the drowning child thought experiment provide a better and more durable source of meaning and societal orientation?
"I'm not sure human nature exists; I'm not sure past behavior predicts future results; I'm not sure history is informative; the year is zero and we cannot make any predictions based on the past; the singularity already happened." These aren't convincing arguments to me.
Don’t think I said any of those things, even in spirit! Certainly don’t believe them, and even gave an example of a somewhat predictive model. Surely you’d agree that the way ideas and values spread has changed significantly since ancient history, and now involves a vast new array of variables that will impact outcomes?
The idea that wokeness is more similar to "no pineapple on pizza" than religion strikes me as ridiculous. Happy to invite you on the podcast to hash this out.
It’s a silly sounding example, but I chose it because 1) its a viral meme that conquered culture while remaining contentious 2) its a proxy for deeper values (the supposed sophistication of tradition). The frenetic way an idea like this will wax, wane and iterate through discursive cycles while responding to other developments in the culture seems more relevant than the (not irrelevant but still quite different) growth and evolution of an ancient religion over centuries among a primarily illiterate population.
What do you think of leftist critiques of wokeness? I’m reading Musa al-Gharbi’s book right now, and the premise is that wokeness is used by elites to maintain status while performing concern for minorities and marginalized groups. Some leftists argue that wokeness helps perpetuate neoliberalism. I’d argue this view isn’t mutually exclusive with the DL theory of woke, but I’m curious about your thoughts.
As usual, your post has a ton of interesting ideas that are worth thinking about. Let me nit-pick about one idea:
"However, no educational system can operate without a religious basis as its radical foundation. That was true for all of history, and it remains true today. "
The necessity of some kind of religion is a recurrent theme in your Substack, and your argument/evidence for this supposition is that "it has always been that way."
I agree that spirituality, a striving for the Ultimate, is a part of human nature, and that religions of some sort have been with us a long, long time. However, this does not mean that a religious-like structure will *always* be necessary for our educational system in the future. "It has always been that way" is not the strongest argument. If I can envision a world in which religious impulses are satisfied without actual religion, then maybe some day we will have that world. "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
Historical arguments are empirical and valid. The question of "something which satisfies religious impulses without being actual religion" is more of a semantic question.
There is certainly a sense in which historical arguments are empirical and valid. I don't think it follows that "what always was, always will be." For example, before science, humanity only had religious explanations for natural phenomena. Perhaps some day we will have a technology for satisfying religious impulses without religious belief systems and cultures.
Yeah, if I believed "what always was, always will be" then I would be a conservative traditionalist. However, unless we eliminate the question "why" from the human vocabulary, we will always need "moralistic cosmology."
When I say "reform" I don't mean "moderation" I mean "radical extremism, taking ideas to their logical conclusions." I mean the Gregorian Reform of the 12th century, total religious revolution.
The degree to which you have retained all of the reading and research that you have obviously done is extraordinary. Not very many people are at your level in this regard. Hopefully more people like Nina and Eric Kaufmann are willing to come and debate/discuss these kinds of issues. Otherwise it will be hard to have thought provoking and well reasoned discussions.
The problem with wokeness is that it distributes oppression poi ts irrationally,if the millionaire daughter of Obama declares herself a nonbinaty 2spirit trans lesbian her needs are elevated above the starving homeless dude dying on the streets,because she shares characteristics with people who suffer. Coleman hugh supports redistribution,just not no racial basis,yet ypu wouldn't call him a leftist. Men live 6 yrs less on average and make 98% of the deaths from working accidents,yet leftists insist health care discriminates against women cuz they don't volunteer as often to have accurate treatment results. Limting group disparities shouldn't trample honesty,rationality and the rile of law. And if woke academics can convince the youth to spend resources for illegal immigrants sex changes,I don't see why can't tech right bros can't satisfy the religious hole by offering Mars colonization,or the EAs offering malaria nets for Africa.The youth are malleable we just need more Kaufmans and Scott Alexander's and Less Judith Butlers and Di Angelo's. Wokes dominate cuz they were relentless,not because their ideas were persuasive,and the new gen intellectuals have to learn from their strengths
commas require a space afterwards
We can just return to the founding religion: americanism, great man worship.
America was and is a settler nation. We will venerate the settler type. The general, the pioneer, the warrior (Andrew Jackson, Douglas Macarthur etc). In the modern age we can give it a high tech twist, worshipping the business magnate or the space entrepreneur.
Only a very small % of the population genuinely believes in egalitarianism to their core. Im not sure why returning to a religion of Americanism or great man worship is impossible.
Perhaps a leftist civil religion is necessary to fulfill chandala slave morality impulses that will always exist among a very unsavory segment of the population. I am sure these can be channeled in less destructive ways
"great man worship" is not a religion. White supremacist Christianity was the original religion of America.
We can have a civil religion worshipping great man of war, industry, science etc. that religion would be implicitly white supremacist because most great men are european.
Just argue for white supremacy instead of being dishonest, don't call it a great man theory.
Hello Deep, I am a big fan of this article. I just had one question that I was wondering if you could answer. You mention that “[t]here is a moral firewall which is preventing HBD from winning the argument at the scale of real power.” Do you think this firewall arises as a result of the current political situation, due to the current multi-ethnic ruling class, or is there simply an innate human aversion to racism? Thanks. Keep up the good work.
Here are some articles where I discuss the origins of anti-HBD morality:
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/is-race-realism-dangerous
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/debunking-cremieux-part-ii
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/is-eugenics-dangerous
You spent a lot of time making a lot of good points and then gave a really bad and incomplete definition of what religon is. Way more involved than just 'who we are and where we come from'. You should into the writings and works of Jamie Wheal — his book Recapture The Rapture is a starting point.
This is a semantic point. I could use the term "moralistic cosmology" to satisfy such pedantry, but I won't.
I agree that wokeness is quasi-religious in nature and that a religious claim demands a religious response. You can't beat a powerful narrative, however false and nonsensical, with no narrative at all.
However, it's at best a quasi-religion. It doesn't do a great job at actually providing deep human meaning in the way that traditional religions do. And so my bet is still on them in the long run. Of course, the fertility differences between the religious and the secular trend in this direction too.
This is a semantic point. I could use the term "moralistic cosmology" to satisfy such pedantry, but I won't.
I think it's more than semantic though. Religion provides community. Wokeism provides "communities" that aren't real communities at all. Communities of colour, of sexual orientation and so on. It doesn't create meaningful human connection of any sort. Sports clubs do a better job of that than woke beliefs do. Woke beliefs just seem to wreck people's mental health without any obvious benefits.
Leftists have political communities. Calling them "not real" or "not meaningful" is just an assertion. Wokeness produced the greatest protest movements of all time. Sports club did jack shit. Conservatives are more mentally ill, and will produce an article on that in the coming weeks.
Interested to hear about conservatives being more mentally ill. From what I've seen it's the opposite but it may hinge on definitions.
I’m not sure that the long centuries of evolution that shaped religions millennia ago are a good model for how wokeness will evolve. Given how radically different the information environment is now relative to ancient history, imo the proliferation of wokeness is more similar to the spread of view that “it’s wrong to eat pineapple on pizza”, and other points of contestation online that are really about values. I also wonder how you think this civic religion would deal with your own thesis that the 22nd century will be the most racist century ever. Is there no better solution to our current juncture than a full societal investment in a perpetually escalating war that you think we’ll lose ground on for over a century? Might the drowning child thought experiment provide a better and more durable source of meaning and societal orientation?
"I'm not sure human nature exists; I'm not sure past behavior predicts future results; I'm not sure history is informative; the year is zero and we cannot make any predictions based on the past; the singularity already happened." These aren't convincing arguments to me.
Don’t think I said any of those things, even in spirit! Certainly don’t believe them, and even gave an example of a somewhat predictive model. Surely you’d agree that the way ideas and values spread has changed significantly since ancient history, and now involves a vast new array of variables that will impact outcomes?
The idea that wokeness is more similar to "no pineapple on pizza" than religion strikes me as ridiculous. Happy to invite you on the podcast to hash this out.
It’s a silly sounding example, but I chose it because 1) its a viral meme that conquered culture while remaining contentious 2) its a proxy for deeper values (the supposed sophistication of tradition). The frenetic way an idea like this will wax, wane and iterate through discursive cycles while responding to other developments in the culture seems more relevant than the (not irrelevant but still quite different) growth and evolution of an ancient religion over centuries among a primarily illiterate population.
What do you think of leftist critiques of wokeness? I’m reading Musa al-Gharbi’s book right now, and the premise is that wokeness is used by elites to maintain status while performing concern for minorities and marginalized groups. Some leftists argue that wokeness helps perpetuate neoliberalism. I’d argue this view isn’t mutually exclusive with the DL theory of woke, but I’m curious about your thoughts.
My view of wokeness:
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/machiavelli-predicted-wokism
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/why-woke-is-good
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/woke-theopolitics
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/how-gen-x-invented-wokeness
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/have-we-reached-peak-woke
Thanks!
As usual, your post has a ton of interesting ideas that are worth thinking about. Let me nit-pick about one idea:
"However, no educational system can operate without a religious basis as its radical foundation. That was true for all of history, and it remains true today. "
The necessity of some kind of religion is a recurrent theme in your Substack, and your argument/evidence for this supposition is that "it has always been that way."
I agree that spirituality, a striving for the Ultimate, is a part of human nature, and that religions of some sort have been with us a long, long time. However, this does not mean that a religious-like structure will *always* be necessary for our educational system in the future. "It has always been that way" is not the strongest argument. If I can envision a world in which religious impulses are satisfied without actual religion, then maybe some day we will have that world. "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
Historical arguments are empirical and valid. The question of "something which satisfies religious impulses without being actual religion" is more of a semantic question.
There is certainly a sense in which historical arguments are empirical and valid. I don't think it follows that "what always was, always will be." For example, before science, humanity only had religious explanations for natural phenomena. Perhaps some day we will have a technology for satisfying religious impulses without religious belief systems and cultures.
Yeah, if I believed "what always was, always will be" then I would be a conservative traditionalist. However, unless we eliminate the question "why" from the human vocabulary, we will always need "moralistic cosmology."
When I say "reform" I don't mean "moderation" I mean "radical extremism, taking ideas to their logical conclusions." I mean the Gregorian Reform of the 12th century, total religious revolution.