What do you call an idea that has a clear track record of promoting innovation, human flourishing, prosperity, and progress, but is nonetheless rejected by every generation?
I would call that idea radical. And because it’s always so staunchly opposed, I would call that idea “eternally radical.”
So what is the Eternally Radical Idea? It is freedom of speech.
The unfettered right to state your opinion is extremely rare in human history. Your right to promote reform, contradict prevailing orthodoxies, or engage in artistic and personal expression is even rarer.
Indeed, human beings are natural born censors with a strong drive toward community conformity. Throughout the millennia, how have we typically handled dissenters? Often it’s ostracization or banishment. At other times, it’s arrest, torture, beheadings, burning at the stake, crucifixion, or drinking hemlock.
Over the past year, the official narrative has been that police are bad and that we should defund or abolish the police. A recent poll shows us that NYC Democratic primary voters resoundingly disagree. Within this group of voters, it difficult to overlook that the groups most seek more police include self-identified "Blacks" with school-aged children who are non-college graduate earning lower wages. Among those responding, those who most often claim that police should be kept off the subways are self-identified "Whites" who don't have school-aged children who are college graduates earning higher wages. That said, all groups other than those describing themselves as "very liberal" or "under 45" seek more police, not fewer.
I recommend this high-energy thoughtful and challenging conversation between Jordan Peterson and Bari Weiss. Do I need to say that I don't agree with everything mentioned during this long conversation? These days, apparently so. There is so much that is honest and good about this open-ended exchange, where these two strong personalities challenge each other and (contrary to the current U.S. zeitgeist) appreciate each other for these challenges.
Here is one of my favorite parts. Those who are steeped in Wokeness so often want to tear everything down, every aspect of the system, all institutions, assuming that there is something good on the other side that will simply organically bloom. This approach is reminding me of fundamentalist libertarianism and fundamentalist conservatives: many of whom believe that great things will simply happen if we just get government out of the way. As though our institutions, which we have crafted over decades and centuries, are not doing Herculaneum work to (imperfectly) set up curbs and guard rails to give us necessary structure to allow human flourishing. I see our (imperfect and always evolving) institutions much like I see traffic laws. Sometimes these institutions seem arbitrary, but they serve to allow people to interact with each other, often in helpful ways that is captured by the definition of "institution" offered by economist Doug North: “humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction." For North, Institutions not bounded by brick and mortar (or by particular people), but by two kinds of constraints: formal and informal. Together, these constraints comprise what John Drobak and North call “the rules of the game.”
We need a set of basic laws in order to move to the next step, to better things, sometimes to almost-magic seeming levels of complexity. Institutions allow this, but destroyed institutions invite (actually, demand) socio-economic collapse. Society's basic rules (promulgated through our institutions) also remind me of the axioms of geometry. Why assume the truth of axioms? Because if you don't, we can't do geometry!
The tear-it down Woke mentality does not offer any meaningful vision of what is on the other side of tearing it down. There is no real-work path being offered to get from the chaos they preach to anything worth having. These youngsters, many of them from a coddled generation, offer no specifics, only cheap-signaling promises that things will somehow be better. For background on this rather sharp accusation of "coddling," see here, here, here, here and here. Today's young adults have not suffered like many people from prior generations who have seen social-economic collapse. They haven't suffered like many first generation immigrants to the U.S., most of whom are not buying Woke ideology, not for one second. The empty of promises of Woke ideologists remind me of the promises of religious fundamentalists who promise "heaven. The realist in me fills in these empty promises of Woke advocates with things like CHAZ/CHOP (see here, for example) and Evergreen State College. Until I see specifics that convince me otherwise, these two things exemplify the Woke end game.
That is the context for the following excerpt. I have edited only for false starts and to tidy up. The content has not been changed:
Jordan Peterson
There is a concern for the dispossessed, and that's what gives the radicals the moral high ground so often. "We're concerned for the dispossessed, aren't you?" It's like, "Well, yes, as a matter of fact, we are." The wielders of these ideas start out with a moral advantage, but the evidence seems to suggest that the very systems they're attempting to tear down are, in fact, the best antidote to the problems that they're laying out. So then the question pops up again: So if that's the case, why the hell is there so much force behind these ideas? What's driving them? And it's associated with that laughter at the thought of violent bloody revolution,
Bari Weiss
Because we're so removed from violent bloody revolution. That's why. It's a luxury to flirt with these ideas. Let's just take an example, I'm not wearing long sleeves. You could see my collarbone, I could walk down the street here with my wife and go get a falafel at the end of the street and not be stoned to death. Okay, that's the reality. That's a miracle.
Jordan Peterson
That is that's what divides people is whether or not they know that's a miracle.
Bari Weiss
Yes. And if you are so removed from the truth of that miracle, and from gratitude for everyone and every idea, every piece of scaffolding that allows for that to be that my reality, then you will have the foolishness. But it's really the luxury in the decadence to flirt with ideas about doing away with it. I am so curious about why certain people feel in their bones, how thin the veneer of civilization is and why other people are so nonchalant about it. I feel like it's a logical question, but I don't know it.
v
Jordan Peterson
I don't know either. When I was in graduate school, I was obsessed with the finitude of life and with mortality and death. I mean, I wake up every morning and think there's no time. Get to it now! I had friends who I would say were more well-adjusted than me. That's certainly part of it. Like they were more emotionally stable, technically speaking, less prone to depression and anxiety. So that's part of that. It was that those ideas never entered the theater of their imagination. Right? They just weren't a set of existential problems for them. For me, it's always been Paramount.
The Biden Administration's continuing prosecution of Julian Assange is not news, for many disheartening reasons (following Glenn Greenwald's links for much more):
Christopher Rufo has been working overtime to expose critical race theory to the sunlight (and see here). CRT is being taught in many schools, including posh private K-12 schools, and it is a very good thing that Rufo has provoked conversations on the content of CRT curricula and training (in schools, government offices and businesses). I agree with many of Rufo's concerns and I appreciate the hard work he has done to make CRT concepts understandable to the many people who are intimidated by CRT rhetoric. As I have discussed many times at this website, CRT is divisive, causing people to lose trust in each other, causing unnecessary suspicions, and failing to promote human flourishing in any meaningful way. I've argued that the end game for CRT is the massively dysfunctional social atmosphere at Evergreen State College. Though I applaud the publication of the Briefing Book, I disagree with Rufo on his enthusiasm for legislative solutions he promotes.
Rufo has recently published a "Critical Race Theory Briefing Book" to help people understand what is currently being peddled under the tents of "antiracism" and "critical race theory." People are starting to speak up about their concerns with CRT (e.g., this recent statement by a public school teacher), but we need to help more people to understand the racecraft being peddled by CRT, and Rufo's Briefing Book will be helpful in that regard. He obtains much of his material from original sources--the Briefing Book is filled with quotes from critical race writers. He has also boiled down these principles into readable nuggets. In doing this, Rufo will be helping many parents, students and employees to understand CRT, which is permeated with vague concepts and familiar-looking words that CRT uses to mean the opposite of their common meanings.
Here is Rufo's definition of "Critical Race Theory, which appears at the beginning of his Briefing Book:
Critical race theory is an academic discipline that holds that the United States is a nation founded on white supremacy and oppression, and that these forces are still at the root of our society. Critical race theorists believe that American institutions, such as the Constitution and legal system, preach freedom and equality, but are mere “camouflages” for naked racial domination. They believe that racism is a constant, universal condition: it simply becomes more subtle, sophisticated, and insidious over the course of history. In simple terms, critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of White and Black. But the basic conclusion is the same: in order to liberate man, society must be fundamentally transformed through moral, economic, and political revolution.
Another key concept of CRT is "Whiteness." Here is how critical race advocates commonly explain "whiteness," (this is another excerpt from the Briefing Book:
Race essentialism: Critical race theory reduces individuals to the quasi-metaphysical categories of “Blackness” and “Whiteness,” then loads those categories with value connotations—positive traits are attributed to “Blackness” and negative traits are attributed to “Whiteness.” Although some critical race theorists formally reject race essentialism, functionally, they often use these categories as malicious labels that erase individual identities.
“Whiteness is dynamic, relational, and operating at all times and on myriad levels. These processes and practices include basic rights, values, beliefs, perspectives and experiences purported to be commonly shared by all but which are actually only consistently afforded to white people.” Robin DiAngelo, “White Fragility.”
“Whiteness is an invisible veil that cloaks its racist deleterious effects through individuals, organizations, and society. The result is that White people are allowed to enjoy the benefits that accrue to them by virtue of their skin color. Thus, Whiteness, White supremacy, and White privilege are three interlocking forces that disguise racism so it may allow White people to oppress and harm persons of color while maintaining their individual and collective advantage and innocence.” Derald Sue, “The Invisible Whiteness of Being.”
“Whiteness by its very definition and operation as a key element of white supremacy kills; it is mental and physical terrorism. To end the white terrorism that is directed at racially oppressed people here and in other nations, it is essential that self-identified whites and their whiteness collaborators among the racially oppressed confront their white problem head-on, unencumbered by racial comfort.” Johnny Williams in the Hartford Courant.
All whites are racist: Critical race theorists argue explicitly that “all white people are racist” and perpetuate systems of white supremacy and systemic racism. This concept is deeply related to race essentialism—whites, including small children, cannot escape from being racist.
“All white people are racist or complicit by virtue of benefiting from privileges that are not something they can voluntarily renounce.” Barbara Applebaum, Being White, Being Good.
“White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility.
“According to studies, babies at two to three years old, start internalizing racist ideas, start discerning and making decisions based on racist ideas … We’re allowing our society to raise them to be racist.” Ibram Kendi on KING5 News.
Are these the types of things you want your schools to teach your children? Are you willing to draw a thick line to tell the Woke movement no? In my view, the excerpts above are racist and destructive ideas that are incompatible with the teachings of Martin Luther King. That is why you will not see CRT advocates discussing MLK, by the way. This is Rufo's opinion too. Where I disagree with Rufo is on how to best oppose the rapid spread of CRT.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
