Is Wokeistan Worth Protecting?

 https://www.npr.org/2021/10/20/1047384050/behind-murky-claim-of-a-new-hypersonic-missile-test-there-lies-a-very-real-arms-

So China has built and is testing hypersonic weapons that could easily take out all our carriers and almost certainly our power grid in one stroke, and we have no defence against it. 

 Do we care? 

What might we defend? Our "right" to be consumers? 

A people's myths, or in this shallow age, superhero comics, give a good clue to what they really believe.
Superman used to fight for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way". 

Today, a bisexual Superman fights for "Truth, Justice, and a Better Future". 

What "truth"? Critical Race Theory? What "justice"? John Rawls? What might a "better" future look like? 

If if the Chinese can provide us with a lot of nearly free entertainment and consumables without the need for work, competition, and the costs of  being a fading world power much like the USSR in the 1980's, why fight? 

 I would guess a majority of Wokeistanis would be fine with that .... and in a pure "democracy" rather than a Republic for which one might stand, or even die for, why not? Perhaps the majority of those who used to sheepishly call themselves "Americans" would not even notice that Biden's puppeteers were Chinese.

Are we so racist as to think that being ruled by Chinese is any worse than being ruled by the Davos Elite? 

Our current "leadership" has a remarkable resemblance to the old Politburo?

I highly recommend reading the last link ... the others if you don't believe me..

Let's go Brandon! 

How Many "Americas" Are There? And What is "Normal"?

 https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/coronavirus-pandemic-americans-divided-assessing-risk/#slide-1

Many of us realized a good while ago that we were not in "America" anymore -- you know, the one that built the Bomb, won WWII, landed on the Moon, created the PC and the Internet -- THAT America. 

"The Decadent Society" is one good book that covers our degree of lostness ... there are others linked there. 

I'd argue that we have been divided from the beginning, as everyone and every human institution is -- between "Control and Chaos" ... we "boiled over" in the Civil War, to some degree in the 1960's, and it looks like we are at it again. 

I think the linked is a worthy read if only as a root for some books that appear to be good .., I have "The Metaphysical Club" on order. 

The other big division is between being a practicing Christian and not being so. Everyone has a "god", and for a much larger percentage of the population today, the "god" they believe they have is government -- sadly, they are wrong in that assumption. The Bible makes it clear, you either serve God or Satan, when you cease to regularly participate in the Divine Service with the Body and Blood, Satan, like the dog waiting for table scraps, is there to take your reins.  

Government is a particularly nasty false god, since it has the power of the sword and the purse. Our Constitution split government into three branches with the hope that "faction" -- jealousy of power, would limit the dangerous "Leviathan"  and keep government as the servant of the people, who were in turn servants of God. It was a wonderful architecture -- but it required a religious people in order to continue to operate.  

So we are sadly divided with no shared foundational belief as to what this territory of N America formerly the "United States", holds as "truth" -- clearly in this failed state, there is no such thing for a majority approaching "self evident" truth. We are supposed to be "woke" to the tragedy of "Critical Theory".

Well, at least it isn't critical "fact" ;-(.

Wokeness, Critical Theory

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-roots-of-wokeness

Well worth just skipping my excerpts and just reading the relatively short article that describes a key foundation of why I continue to assert we need to "man the barricades" or "Western Civilization" is just "history" ... and really not even that, because such things as supposed "actual history" will be destroyed ... just like pulling down statues.

What the book helps the layperson to understand is the evolution of postmodern thought since the 1960s until it became the doctrine of Social Justice today. Beginning as a critique of all grand theories of meaning—from Christianity to Marxism—postmodernism is a project to subvert the intellectual foundations of western culture. The entire concept of reason—whether the Enlightenment version or even the ancient Socratic understanding—is a myth designed to serve the interests of those in power, and therefore deserves to be undermined and “problematized” whenever possible. Postmodern theory does so mischievously and irreverently—even as it leaves nothing in reason’s place. The idea of objective truth—even if it is viewed as always somewhat beyond our reach—is abandoned. All we have are narratives, stories, whose meaning is entirely provisional, and can in turn be subverted or problematized.

Notice how today it is ALL about "the narrative"!

Just as this theory denies the individual, it also denies the universal. There are no universal truths, no objective reality, just narratives that are expressed in discourses and language that reflect one group’s power over another. There is no distinction between objective truth and subjective experience, because the former is an illusion created by the latter. So instead of an argument, you merely have an identity showdown, in which the more oppressed always wins, because that subverts the hierarchy. These discourses of power, moreover, never end; there is no progress as such, no incremental inclusion of more and more identities into a pluralist, liberal unified project; there is the permanent reality of the oppressors and the oppressed. And all that we can do is constantly expose and eternally resist these power-structures on behalf of the oppressed.

Why don't we just talk this over? 

There is no such thing as persuasion in this paradigm, because persuasion assumes an equal relationship between two people based on reason. And there is no reason and no equality. There is only power. This is the point of telling students, for example, to “check their privilege” before opening their mouths on campus. You have to measure the power dynamic between you and the other person first of all; you do this by quickly noting your interlocutor’s place in the system of oppression, and your own, before any dialogue can occur. And if your interlocutor is lower down in the matrix of identity, your job is to defer and to listen. That’s partly why diversity at the New York Times, say, has nothing to do with a diversity of ideas. Within critical theory, the very concept of a “diversity of ideas” is a function of oppression. What matters is a diversity of identities that can all express the same idea: that liberalism is a con-job. Which is why almost every NYT op-ed now and almost every left-leaning magazine reads exactly alike.

The book he references is on my rather extensive "books to read" list!

I sadly scratched this scab back in 2017 ... it is a painful one!