A new ideology has emerged on the far left. This ideology slices and dices people according to their immutable characteristics, pushing us into smaller and smaller categories. It says that these immutable characteristics (especially skin color) define us absolutely, to the point of downplaying or dismissing entirely our shared humanity. It cuts us off from vast swathes of the human race, leading to loneliness and a sense of isolation. We call this the "tribe of one" ideology because that is its philosophical endpoint.
It is shared values and shared humanity that make civilization--and the lack of these things, the insistence on an ethnic or sexual identity that none but members of that identity can share is indeed very destructive. Mark Twain understood Huck as well as Jim; many a male writer has created convincing female characters; many a writer has produced a story line peopled with characters from locales and ethnicities not shared by the writer. The willingness to explore other worlds in writing and art is not "cultural appropriation" but it is cultural appreciation and it is empathy.
Sadly, this isn't a new ideology. One has only to look at the worldview of the German National Socialist Workers' Party to find a perfect example. The major difference is they used Jews instead of whites as the "out" group. Pretending this is new not only gives the idea credibility it doesn't deserve, it obscures the linkage in terms of tactics and methods between these two ideologies. Race essentialism is not only destructive, it tends to be a one-way street to a very poor outcome.
Yea, I figure even if I left an emoji or an LOL, it could be ambiguous. It's a shame that internet discussions so frequently break down into A) Godwin's Law type hyperbole and/or B) shaming and derision.
I’m on board with the authors’ main points. But it’s a bit jarring to see Eckhart Tolle quoted as ego expert. The authors may like him, but I don’t think he’s the best “authority” to cite.
Eckhart Tolle appears to have an enormous “ego”, as do most self proclaimed spiritual seers who denigrate the “ego”; it’s like their egos are so big they don’t even realize it’s there. Like a fish swimming in the ocean not realizing it’s in the ocean. Or they are just charlatans.
Our selves are by their nature, conflicted. They start with the 'I' and the 'Me' (the generalized notion we shape of how others view us). Then we have all the added qualities of family history, religion or the lack or it, education, local customs, folklore and such. We also have a relation to production of 'class.' We are employed, self-employed, or employers. Each of these has a contending outlook. But 'race'? Race is a fake construct designed by our rulers to keep us ruled, especially the notion of a 'white race' on top. We would do well to abolish it, along with the other colors. We still have our ancestries and such, but they have some reality to them that make people interesting. That we can celebrate. But dump 'the white race' as a conceptual identity. It's only meant to keep us down.
Pauli Murray was not a "he." This is a presumptuous, post-mortem misgendering based on trans ideology. There is no evidence whatsoever that Murray thought of herself as a man. I can't even say "identified" because these terms and concepts were not in vogue at the time. In current parlance, Murray was a gender-nonconforming lesbian who preferred sometimes to dress in men's clothes. In fact, her achievements and commitment to women's empowerment were explicit and wide-ranging.
By the way, there was no such thing as a "queer" category in her day, since post-modernism and the gay rights movement were decades away. It's anachronistic to use that term in this context.
Perhaps the authors of this post thought they were being progressive and cutting-edge, offering a new, updated, better understanding of a remarkable Black female icon. But as Abigail Shrier eloquently put it in her book "Irreversible Damage," you've subjected Pauli Murray to a "baptism of the dead," attaching a trans identity to her where none existed. Please read the attached short, but succinct, biography of Murray and HER many achievements. Thank you.
"By the way, there was no such thing as a 'queer' category in her day, since post-modernism and the gay rights movement were decades away. It's anachronistic to use that term in this context."
Thank you! I am a queer-critical gay man who thought he was alone in objecting to the hegemonic nature of the term "queer."
For example, in the late teens the program for a local theater company's production of a one-man show about James Beard referred to him as "queer." It was almost enough to spoil the performance. I suspect Beard was a sweet gay queen in his final years who would have blanched at the thought that someone would think him "queer." As you say, it is an anachronism, but queers don't respect other identities.
At a time when progressive identity-group politics dictates that we split our society into ever-finer affinity groups in the interest of inclusivity, queer is rolling right over lesbians, gay men and, yes, bisexuals like a combine through a hay field and spitting us out in neat blocks stamped "Queer."
For proof of queer hegemony, one need look no further than the Queer Resource Center at the university where I am a post-bac student. The student-funded official organization for what used to be called sexual minorities and for today's synthetic gender identities recognizes only two types: queers and trans. A person will search in vain for the word "gay" in the Center's mission statement. Naturally, there's nothing gay about the queerness there. It's a humorless, strident form of Wokeness that caters to the most marginalized of the marginalized.
Just yesterday the Washington Post ran a story under the headline "How queer went corporate: The 50-year evolution of LGBTQ+ marketing." They got it wrong. Fifty years ago "queer" was a slur. I wish I knew whether the headline writer considers themselves queer or whether they're just another straight media "ally" who wants to signal that they're edgy and with-it.
I hope that there are gay men in the 25-40 age group who recognize queer for what it is (in my view, it's a scene except in its doctrinaire form, in which case it seeks to upset all norms pertaining to sex and the imaginary concept called gender) and are willing to keep the term gay in public circulation.
Dear Ollie, Thanks for sharing your observations. You're on the money and I agree across the board.
I'm 71 and I came out in 1972, when the word "queer" was a slur, like the n-word. We sometimes used the word among ourselves to express irony, but we sure didn't use the word to speak about ourselves. I've never adopted its use and neither have any of my friends. I have a couple of straight friends who tried to use the word in conversation with me, thinking they were being respectful, and I had to set them straight (as it were).
"Queer" started to gain traction in its new sense during the 1980s in the universities. In the early 1990s, I recall having a chat with a lesbian feminist professor who had returned from an academic conference and reported that "they're trying to disappear the lesbians." By this she meant that lesbian students were being told that if they were butch, they had a male gender and they should transition instead of thinking of themselves as women.
The long-term result has been the decimation of lesbian community. There are hardly any lesbians left, especially butches. The bars and bookstores are gone, lesbian culture is a thing of the past, and garden-variety masculine girls (i.e., tomboys) are groomed to identify as trans by teachers and activists.
In terms of the modern definition of "Queer," if you enjoy a theoretical approach, you might get some insight from the writings of James Lindsay. He's not gay, but he's well-versed in the philosophy of critical theory, out of which Queer was invented.
Finally, there's a writer on Substack named Karlyn Borysenko who focuses specifically on Queer, not as a gay thing, but as an umbrella term for subversion of the entire society along Marxist lines. https://karlyn.substack.com/
I empathize and don't envy you this fight. The rabidity of the TRAs is such that they are doing much harm to both the Gay/Bi and Women's Rights communities. No one should have to be erased or diminished for others to flourish. Their zero-sum approach is toxic and can't last. It's just not rational and especially, it is not fair nor kind. I want trans people to flourish, but not at the expense of everyone else.
I feel the same. The zero-sum game they play is authoritarian, narcissistic and misogynist. It's a shame, because I require very little from the trans community: respect women's single-sex locker rooms, prisons and sports. Stop pretending the biological differences between men and women are insignificant and unimportant. Respect women, and receive respect in return.
I hate to make generalizations, because I know for a fact that not all men who identify as women are misogynists, but mostly they keep their mouths shut out of fear of being harassed.
I'm grateful to trans activists like Blaire White and Corinna Cohn, who go the extra mile to defend women's sports and single-sex prisons and advocate for restrictions on the transitioning of children until they reach the age of majority.
You and I are in total accord on this. Stop pretending that male bodies don't have advantages over women's bodies in sport - even hormonally weakened male bodies are dominating. Some commenter I encountered asserted that there was no data to support the supposition that trans women will dominate women's sports. Well, the data is building and at some point, they will have to admit that it's incontravertible. As they will have to admit that increasing rapes and pregnancies in women's prisons point to a problem there.
Unlike 10 or so years ago, I deeply believe that an increasing percentage of trans women are male posturers seeking gain. They are not truly dysphoric at all. They are using the current, hysterical moment as cover to feed their egos and/or predatory urges. I can't prove this but my intuition is screaming at me.
In a few cases, TRAs are defending the right of convicted sex predators having access to women only spaces. It's a bit insane. How do they justify this?
The commenter "asserting there are no data to support the supposition that trans women will dominate women's sports" is not a serious person. Trans women are already dominating women's sports. Lia Thomas moved from a ranking of # 554 in the 200 yard freestyle (in men’s swimming) to #1 (in women’s swimming). Cycling is a sport where men are consistently beating women, to the extent that women are leaving the sport. Weightlifting...another sport where males consistently outperform females regardless of how they identify. Even once-in-a-generation tennis superstar Serena Williams has made it clear that she stands to gain nothing by attempting to compete against men: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hzHBsvj6C0
And here's just one study, done by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, which discusses the minimal change in performance by men identifying as women after a year of testosterone suppression:
"Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage"
Finding: "Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed.”
There is no justification for allowing male sex offenders to be housed in women's facilities, but this hardly matters. And your belief that an increasing percentage of trans women are male posturers seeking gain makes perfect sense to me. Why wouldn't they, if they can get away with it? There's no vetting of any kind.
Have you read or heard Helen Joyce on this issue? She's terrific. I'll leave you with this short clip from a full-length interview, which I urge you to listen to as well:
Ego is present when and wherever an identity label is self-applied, right, left, center or anywhere else on any spectrum. It's the narcissism, the sense of entitlement, and most of all the victimhood mentality that is so damaging. CRT/DEI posits that justice is impossible and the world is an evil place, where racism is the source of every ill. Who wouldn't be miserable if they believed that? The authors miss the larger point. These unhappy people know full well that they're unhappy. They revel in it. They choose to be miserable because of the sense of romantic nobility they believe their suffering imparts to them. Having once been a Catholic, I understand how people (mis)use their own suffering, turning it into a proof of their own spiritual purity. It's sick, masochistic, and totally ego driven. I see some skeptics on here about Tolle. I get it it. I'm not into the woo-woo either, but having read his books, I can attest that they do contain wisdom, mainly because they are grounded in the established traditions of both Western psychology and Buddhism, not simply some claptrap made up by the author, as is so much in the self-help business world.
Buddhism is foolish clap trap. And there is no coherent monolith that is “western psychology”. And even while Buddhism is foolish clap trap, Eckart Tolle is not “grounded in Buddhism”— modern authors often just allude to Buddhism as a source of authority for their own made up garbage, even if Buddhism is garbage too. Because lots of people have a naive reverence for it.
Our “egos” are a prime motivator for all of us. No one is exempt. Except for perhaps people with a brain illness. I don’t think Tolle has a brain illness; he is either a charlatan or has a profound lack of self-awareness. Maybe both.
Some "Buddhist" ideas are claptrap, certainly. Nihilism and solipsism can both find justifications in ancient Buddhist texts, and both are clearly nonsensical worldviews.
However, there is also a great deal of valuable insight in Buddhist teachings and practices. This is a culture which has existed for over 2500 years. Many brilliant individuals have contributed to Buddhist scriptures, including some alive today.
Before dismissing all of Buddhism as "claptrap", I highly recommend you read Mathieu Ricard's little book, Happiness - just to give one example.
Matthieu Ricard? The former king of Tibet’s personal servant and translator? The guy who for decades enabled the manipulative predator Sogyal Rinpoche?
I would not imagine someone who could be “happy” while behaving like Ricard did would be well positioned to understand happiness - or at least my own. Perhaps if I were some peculiar class of sociopath who could live contentedly without deep personal attachments in a cave while delusional worshippers ritually fed me, I’d look into his book. Although I’ve read the works of other frauds, so maybe I’ll pick up a used copy and read it out of curiosity some day.
Foundational Buddhism is sufficiently homogenous to judge it as a monolith. Just as Christianity is. Or Judaism. Or Islam. Or Mormonism. The distinct ideology that is found in the foundation of Buddhism is claptrap. Certainly everything said by any writer or philosopher that has expressed fealty to the Sith Lord Gotama isn’t claptrap. Just like not everything a Christian has written is claptrap. But it’s not meaningfully relevant in judging that Christian ideology is irrational and evil. I don’t care about the opinions of every random person in the past 2000 years who claims to represent the “true” Christian ideology. I suspect your opinion of “Buddhism” is probably as relevant to understanding Buddhism as a Mormon’s opinion of Christianity is to understanding Christianity.
One thing I’ll point out is that Buddhism didn’t first discover / invent / practice “meditation.” Even from Buddhist scriptures it’s clear that Gotama, or whoever invented Gotama, acquired their techniques of meditation from non Buddhists. Albeit it ultimately doesnt matter who first practiced meditation techniques, just like it doesn’t matter who first practiced whistling. But these days since Buddhism so often is associated with meditation, it’s a valuable thing to point out. Various forms of meditation are things some Buddhists do, not what Buddhism is. Just like how Hitler painted.
The biggest evils and horseshittery of Buddhism is found in its ethics, psychology, and eschatology.
And no one alive today has contributed to Buddhist scriptures. Just like no one alive today has contributed to Christian scriptures. I’d consider that an elementary classification flaw of what Christian or Buddhist “scripture” is, simply motivated by personal reverence. And no “brilliant” individuals contributed to either if we are to judge simply by the content of the scriptures, unless we are just using the word “brilliant” to refer banally to people who likely have an above average iq or show some sort of creativity, and it could apply to people, say, like Joseph Goebbels. Do you think “brilliant individuals” contributed to Nazi ideology? Do you affirm Joseph Goebbels was “brilliant”? Or are you just expressing a foolish reverence for Buddhism?
And the assumption you have made that I have judged Buddhism as claptrap without investigating it significantly is false. My judgement of Buddhism as claptrap rests on a comprehensive investigation—reading original scriptures and sympathetic authors throughout history, and related political and historical literature. An investigation more thorough than the ideology requires or deserves before one could reasonably declare it claptrap. I am a curious spirit.
Jeffrey, I don't know whether you are "some kind of sociopath", but you do seem a little hasty to rush to harsh judgments of other people about whom you clearly know very little.
Interestingly, one of the key messages of Buddhism is that it's possible to overcome that tendency to harshly judge people without evidence; indeed, by doing that, you also might stop harshly judging yourself, and that in turn might lead to greater personal happiness, leading in turn to a certain degree of gratitude, which tends to manifest as a greater interest in being kind and helpful towards others.
Some forms of Buddhism don't practice meditation at all; the Santi Asok sect in Thailand is one example of a very traditional, quite extreme form of Buddhism that bases practices on physical work rather than meditation. Others focus intensely on meditation; the Forest Monk tradition of Ajahn Chah being one good example.
Certainly there are a great many people contributing to Buddhist scriptures today. I mentioned Matthieu Ricard - a thoroughly decent man, who you are welcome to try to smear and insult by association with various other people, if you wish.
You may also have heard of some other great modern Buddhist teachers; I won't give you any more names, because I don't really want to read any more of your baseless insults about them.
You are under no obligation at all to study Buddhist practices or teachings, and you are welcome to continue insulting them if you like.
But in my experience, most people who take the time to study Buddhism don't seem to regret it; I know I don't. :-)
So before a lecture on not judging people harshly you imply that I may be some type of sociopath because I harshly judged someone you like? Did you learn that hypocrisy from studying Buddhism?
We clearly have different sentiments on Matthieu Ricard. The notion I have no evidence on his behavior — or lack thereof — is a bizarre assumption. He has already admitted to “regretting” it on his blog. Quite a long time after he engaged in it. The difference between him and I doesn’t seem to be the evidence, but the moral gravity. He feels hollow apologetics is sufficient. I do not.
It’s important to harshly judge people — especially when there is adequate justification to do so. Assuming a person doesn’t do the same thing as the person being harshly judged, a person neednt worry about judging themselves for it. And while people often times judge themselves excessively and too harshly, and can even be a manifestation of a brain illness, judging ourselves is *sometimes* part of the way non sociopaths can change and become better people. Some people actually don’t judge themselves harshly enough, such as Matthieu Ricard. That may sometimes be good for *their* “happiness”, but then again, much misery has come to others from people
with lots of power not judging themselves when they should — and people not judging people with lots of power when they should.
“ Certainly there are a great many people contributing to Buddhist scriptures today.”
Certainly there isn’t, except for the particular people who have decided to embrace that literature and call it “Buddhist scripture”, such as yourself. You are welcome to do so. And I am welcome to call that irrational.
“ You are under no obligation at all to study Buddhist practices or teachings, and you are welcome to continue insulting them if you like”
Perhaps you didn’t read my comment. I’ve studied Buddhism; I wouldn’t be surprised if I have studied it more than you. And I will continue to insult it. It’s deserved. Just like Scientology deserves to be insulted. And Nazism. Do you have a problem with insult in general or just of what you worship?
“ But in my experience, most people who take the time to study Buddhism don't seem to regret it; I know I don't. :-)”
I cannot say I regret studying Buddhism anymore than I can say I regret studying Nazism. Again, I am a curious spirit.
“ You may also have heard of some other great modern Buddhist teachers; I won't give you any more names, because I don't really want to read any more of your baseless insults about them.”
Great Buddhist teachers is a bit of an oxymoron, like Great Nazism teachers. Not all Buddhist teachers are horrible people, but preaching Buddhism is bad. Why don’t you want to read insults about the people you grovel? Sounds like “attachment” to me. You are failing at what your beloved teachers perniciously preach. Either you should futilely practice more or abandon the quixotic quest. I am guessing your devotion to the foolishness is way too strong for the latter, thus I will hypothesize you will proudly continue to eat your own face.
I was making a statement of my belief, which was opposed to your belief. And your aggressive response provides some evidence for mine being true. Thanks. I’ll have fun with it.
“Misanthropic rant” — “attention-seeking troll”. How easy it sometimes is to to demonstrate the hypocrisy of people who preach against “the ego”.
It is actually “ego transcending” philosophies that are “misanthropic”, such as that of Tolle and Buddhism — displaying a deep disparagement of basic elements of the nature of the vast majority of humans. Only something inhuman could resemble the soul that they exult.
As for attention seeking—I do indeed have a need for loving and respectful attention from other humans. From you specifically, though, I do not. Your disrespectful attention may not provide for my needs, but it does serve as some evidence for that argument you were looking for.
Pauli Murray was a woman, and while gender atypical there seems no reason to refer to her as “he.” It’s possible that she would have embraced the title of transgender if she was born at a different time. It is also possible that she would have embraced herself as a gender atypical lesbian who could see herself as represented in the idea that there is no correct way to be a woman. We don’t know.
The tribe of one sure does sound like a lonely type of existence. But this article takes several leaps beyond "tribe of one" to equate that first with ego-centered existence and then to a liberal mentality in contrast to American conservatism. Both those leaps of logic are not entirely warranted. Consider the argument in reverse: are all liberals ego-centered? are conservatives NOT ego-centered? Surely some of the most ego-centric, socially impervious individuals on our national stage are GOP and MAGA. So, this logic fails.
Consider also: that being lost in depersonalization is pretty much the complete opposite of "ego-centric". Depersonalization and derealization are semi-psychotic states, not associated with a strong ego. That tribe of one who suffers depersonalization and derealization needs health-care, not political castigation.
Consider also: a strong, healthy ego (also called a "personality") is essential to healthy social life.
Maybe liberals see more of the actual problems with our contemporary civilization. Huge problems like anthropogenic climate change, massive extinctions, the massive incarceration rates in the USA and so forth: yes, those can put a damper on mental health. Ignoring those might let conservatives feel better, but that sense of well-being is like an ostrich with its head in the sand.
I try to hold my identity lightly and am irked when categorized by my physical particulars and cultural origins. These are characteristics I see as trivial compared to ways of attending-learning, emoting-thinking, acting and growing. I think it's unhelpful to redefine "tribe" and to redefine "egoism" as a "tribe of one". It does allow the authors say that egoism leads to egoism. I'm also boggled by statements that egoism may destroy a belief in spirit worlds and that happiness requires a blind certainty.
There is much that is objectionable about the woke left's criticism of individualism and its embrace of monolithic racial, ethnic and gender identity groups.
However, it beggars belief to assert, as the authors do, that:
"[T]he 'tribe of one' ideology is a major contributor to loneliness and poor mental health. Several studies have shown a consistent pattern wherein conservatives report better mental health than liberals."
This highly reductionist analysis is oblivious to the many other variables that can determine whether someone is struggling with loneliness and mental health problems. Common sense suggests that the "tribe of one" ideology is not nearly sufficiently pervasive among American liberals to cause a measurable degradation in their mental health. I submit that it takes effort and even intentionality to tap into the woke identitarian discourse, and that most liberals are unfamiliar with the particulars.
For one thing, the liberals who are most likely to think of themselves as, say, "members of the (insert name of marginalized identity group) community" constitute about less than half - 40 percent - of Democratic voters., according to Pew. Again, though, there really is no way of knowing whether four out of ten Dems are lonely and mentally unwell because of their embrace of identity politics. To rule out other causal factors more research is required.
Tribe of one mentality is not surprising considering the number of unintelligent, self absorbed, narcissistic and entitled people we have rounding out the population these days, reinforced by an always on, social media blitz of self aggrandizing buffoonery. The tyranny of the dumb is strong in our world.
There are some really good ideas in this article, but also some obvious errors.
Bringing in Eckhard Tolle and nondual spirituality as an antidote to the insane divisiveness of identity politics is an excellent idea, and something that can appeal to people on the "Hard Left" just as much as "conservatives".
If wokery is to be defeated, it must be defeated in the minds of socialists, centrists and conservatives alike.
Unfortunately, the simplistic analysis of the alleged link between mental wellness and right-wing political views destroys the article's credibility. It's well understood by almost everyone that crazy rich people are seen as "eccentric geniuses" while poor people with similar behaviours and mental states are routinely diagnosed with schizophrenia, OCD, or other mental disorders.
Trump, Hitler, Mussolini, Matt Hancock, etc., no doubt would report themselves as "perfectly happy with their mental health"; those around them might well report otherwise.
Since rich people tend to have more conservative views - due to simple self-interest - it is hardly surprising that conservatives are less likely to be diagnosed with mental health issues.
On the other side, since impoverished people are more likely to have Left views, again from simple self-interest, and since impoverished people are far more likely to be anxious, depressed, and traumatised by their miserable lives, it is hardly surprising that more Socialists than Tories report mental disorder diagnoses.
The article uses the vague, misleading term "Liberal" as a proxy for Left views; in fact many conservatives would describe themselves as classically liberal, while many socialists would reject that label. Was Stalin "liberal"? Was Mussolini "conservative"? Such misleading terms obscure whatever they are attempting to describe.
A mistake that often appears in right-leaning articles is the conflation of identity-politics and "the Hard Left". Actually, if you look at genuinely hard-left sources, such as the Trotskyite Fourth International web site (a surprisingly good global news source, www.wsws.org) they are consistently and strongly opposed to identity politics and wokery.
The British Tory Party, on the other hand, is very fond of "diversity" (meaning anti-white racism and anti-male sexism) and "inclusion" (meaning exclusion of those with differing opinions, such as Andrew Bridgen MP) even if it seldom mentions "equity".
The nonsense of "trans women are women" and the insanity of Critical Race Theory are much more prevalent among centrists - both centre-left and centre-right - than among genuine Marxists.
Remember the laughable BLM document which claimed their nakedly racist movement was led by "trained Marxists" - all in pursuit of large donations from multinational corporations.
The real hard Left has far more in common with open-minded, science-based conservatives than it does with racist, segregationist idiots like Robin DiAngelo or Ibram X. Kendy.
“ Bringing in Eckhard Tolle and nondual spirituality as an antidote to the insane divisiveness of identity politics is an excellent idea”
It is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever come across. And I would absolutely love to discuss it with you over Zoom. Would you be willing to record a discussion about it over Zoom and publish it on YouTube / Rumble?
Jeffrey, I'm happy to talk about it with you about it right here.
You say you think it's "stupid" to recommend nondual spirituality as a method to overcome divisive identity politics; so clearly you don't know much about nondual spirituality, because that's exactly what it's for.
Nondual, not divided, is precisely the opposite of divisive; and fixed, permanent identities are exactly the thing that nondual philosophies teach people how to liberate themselves from.
Whether it's Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or scientific pantheism - all of which are in fact quite compatible - all these teachings help people to escape from limiting beliefs such as identifying themselves with race, gender, sexuality, nationality, etc., and see themselves instead as - well; as something that cannot be limited or even described in words; as what we really are.
I do hear your biting cynicism, and to some extent I feel your pain. But cynicism is not the wisest strategy; it does only bring pain, in the end.
If you look inside yourself and ask the honest question, "Who am I?" you might find that there is, in fact, something there that you don't feel in the least cynical about.
And once you've found it in there, look around; you might start to notice it in other places too. :-)
Taoism, Buddhism, “scientific pantheism”, Hinduism, all have significant differences in their ideologies. There is no perennial philosophy. I’ve studied quite a bit of philosophy and religion, and whatever it is that *you* think, isn’t probably what they taught. You might think so out of vanity that you have found the truth that underlies them all—but that is simply what it is, foolish vanity.
What you hear isn’t “cynicism”, it’s simply denigration of particular ideas. The notion that I am all cynicism and that if I just look inside myself I might find
something that isn’t is just idiotic slander. There is plenty of
things I don’t have cynicism about — for example, watermelon. Watermelon is absolutely delicious. But your attitude is clearly stupid. People should be cynical about *you* but it doesn’t mean people should be cynical about *everything*. You really need to work on that “non dualism” you are preaching. And cynicism can prevent pain sometimes.
We should have a zoom conversation because doing it here is much more tedious. And it would be much more valuable if I could publish it to YouTube. We have like 3 threads going here. I’ll probably stop responding. Join me on zoom. Don’t be scared. My twitter handle is meisterpeeps. Let’s set it up. We can even have one that isn’t recorded first if that makes you more comfortable . Let’s chat.
It is shared values and shared humanity that make civilization--and the lack of these things, the insistence on an ethnic or sexual identity that none but members of that identity can share is indeed very destructive. Mark Twain understood Huck as well as Jim; many a male writer has created convincing female characters; many a writer has produced a story line peopled with characters from locales and ethnicities not shared by the writer. The willingness to explore other worlds in writing and art is not "cultural appropriation" but it is cultural appreciation and it is empathy.
Not all of us fit well on the liberal-conservative axis. It's tiresome when so many studies try to place everyone somewhere along it.
D'accord!
Some alternatives to that narrow, single axis include:
- Political Compass
- Tilted Political Compass (an interesting variation on the above)
And slightly afield, but in a somewhat similar vein:
- Moral Foundations theory
- Primal World Beliefs theory
Here are some handy links to each of those:
https://incentivesmatter.substack.com/p/warning-labels/comment/13563281
Sadly, this isn't a new ideology. One has only to look at the worldview of the German National Socialist Workers' Party to find a perfect example. The major difference is they used Jews instead of whites as the "out" group. Pretending this is new not only gives the idea credibility it doesn't deserve, it obscures the linkage in terms of tactics and methods between these two ideologies. Race essentialism is not only destructive, it tends to be a one-way street to a very poor outcome.
Godwin has entered the chat...
Nope. Simply pointing out a very obvious similarity. Just because people don't want or like to admit it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I was just joking, I happen to mostly-agree with the sentiment of your comment. We're both FAIR subscribers, after all.
Thanks for the explanation. It's just so common for the whole Godwin thing to be used to dismiss statements humor doesn't always come though clearly.
Yea, I figure even if I left an emoji or an LOL, it could be ambiguous. It's a shame that internet discussions so frequently break down into A) Godwin's Law type hyperbole and/or B) shaming and derision.
I’m on board with the authors’ main points. But it’s a bit jarring to see Eckhart Tolle quoted as ego expert. The authors may like him, but I don’t think he’s the best “authority” to cite.
Eckhart Tolle appears to have an enormous “ego”, as do most self proclaimed spiritual seers who denigrate the “ego”; it’s like their egos are so big they don’t even realize it’s there. Like a fish swimming in the ocean not realizing it’s in the ocean. Or they are just charlatans.
It jarred to read Pauli Murray described by the slur "queer": Pauli Murray was a lesbian. The terms are not equivalent.
Our selves are by their nature, conflicted. They start with the 'I' and the 'Me' (the generalized notion we shape of how others view us). Then we have all the added qualities of family history, religion or the lack or it, education, local customs, folklore and such. We also have a relation to production of 'class.' We are employed, self-employed, or employers. Each of these has a contending outlook. But 'race'? Race is a fake construct designed by our rulers to keep us ruled, especially the notion of a 'white race' on top. We would do well to abolish it, along with the other colors. We still have our ancestries and such, but they have some reality to them that make people interesting. That we can celebrate. But dump 'the white race' as a conceptual identity. It's only meant to keep us down.
Pauli Murray was not a "he." This is a presumptuous, post-mortem misgendering based on trans ideology. There is no evidence whatsoever that Murray thought of herself as a man. I can't even say "identified" because these terms and concepts were not in vogue at the time. In current parlance, Murray was a gender-nonconforming lesbian who preferred sometimes to dress in men's clothes. In fact, her achievements and commitment to women's empowerment were explicit and wide-ranging.
By the way, there was no such thing as a "queer" category in her day, since post-modernism and the gay rights movement were decades away. It's anachronistic to use that term in this context.
Perhaps the authors of this post thought they were being progressive and cutting-edge, offering a new, updated, better understanding of a remarkable Black female icon. But as Abigail Shrier eloquently put it in her book "Irreversible Damage," you've subjected Pauli Murray to a "baptism of the dead," attaching a trans identity to her where none existed. Please read the attached short, but succinct, biography of Murray and HER many achievements. Thank you.
https://thevelvetchronicle.com/grave-robbers-declare-pauli-murray-was-not-a-woman/
"By the way, there was no such thing as a 'queer' category in her day, since post-modernism and the gay rights movement were decades away. It's anachronistic to use that term in this context."
Thank you! I am a queer-critical gay man who thought he was alone in objecting to the hegemonic nature of the term "queer."
For example, in the late teens the program for a local theater company's production of a one-man show about James Beard referred to him as "queer." It was almost enough to spoil the performance. I suspect Beard was a sweet gay queen in his final years who would have blanched at the thought that someone would think him "queer." As you say, it is an anachronism, but queers don't respect other identities.
At a time when progressive identity-group politics dictates that we split our society into ever-finer affinity groups in the interest of inclusivity, queer is rolling right over lesbians, gay men and, yes, bisexuals like a combine through a hay field and spitting us out in neat blocks stamped "Queer."
For proof of queer hegemony, one need look no further than the Queer Resource Center at the university where I am a post-bac student. The student-funded official organization for what used to be called sexual minorities and for today's synthetic gender identities recognizes only two types: queers and trans. A person will search in vain for the word "gay" in the Center's mission statement. Naturally, there's nothing gay about the queerness there. It's a humorless, strident form of Wokeness that caters to the most marginalized of the marginalized.
Just yesterday the Washington Post ran a story under the headline "How queer went corporate: The 50-year evolution of LGBTQ+ marketing." They got it wrong. Fifty years ago "queer" was a slur. I wish I knew whether the headline writer considers themselves queer or whether they're just another straight media "ally" who wants to signal that they're edgy and with-it.
I hope that there are gay men in the 25-40 age group who recognize queer for what it is (in my view, it's a scene except in its doctrinaire form, in which case it seeks to upset all norms pertaining to sex and the imaginary concept called gender) and are willing to keep the term gay in public circulation.
Dear Ollie, Thanks for sharing your observations. You're on the money and I agree across the board.
I'm 71 and I came out in 1972, when the word "queer" was a slur, like the n-word. We sometimes used the word among ourselves to express irony, but we sure didn't use the word to speak about ourselves. I've never adopted its use and neither have any of my friends. I have a couple of straight friends who tried to use the word in conversation with me, thinking they were being respectful, and I had to set them straight (as it were).
"Queer" started to gain traction in its new sense during the 1980s in the universities. In the early 1990s, I recall having a chat with a lesbian feminist professor who had returned from an academic conference and reported that "they're trying to disappear the lesbians." By this she meant that lesbian students were being told that if they were butch, they had a male gender and they should transition instead of thinking of themselves as women.
The long-term result has been the decimation of lesbian community. There are hardly any lesbians left, especially butches. The bars and bookstores are gone, lesbian culture is a thing of the past, and garden-variety masculine girls (i.e., tomboys) are groomed to identify as trans by teachers and activists.
However, you're not alone in your views, Ollie. Check out Gary Lucia's work here on Substack. https://flashinggreen.substack.com/p/queer-is-the-real-dont-say-gay
There's an organization called Gays Against Groomers...maybe you're familiar with them. https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/
In terms of the modern definition of "Queer," if you enjoy a theoretical approach, you might get some insight from the writings of James Lindsay. He's not gay, but he's well-versed in the philosophy of critical theory, out of which Queer was invented.
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-queer-theory/
Finally, there's a writer on Substack named Karlyn Borysenko who focuses specifically on Queer, not as a gay thing, but as an umbrella term for subversion of the entire society along Marxist lines. https://karlyn.substack.com/
I empathize and don't envy you this fight. The rabidity of the TRAs is such that they are doing much harm to both the Gay/Bi and Women's Rights communities. No one should have to be erased or diminished for others to flourish. Their zero-sum approach is toxic and can't last. It's just not rational and especially, it is not fair nor kind. I want trans people to flourish, but not at the expense of everyone else.
I feel the same. The zero-sum game they play is authoritarian, narcissistic and misogynist. It's a shame, because I require very little from the trans community: respect women's single-sex locker rooms, prisons and sports. Stop pretending the biological differences between men and women are insignificant and unimportant. Respect women, and receive respect in return.
I hate to make generalizations, because I know for a fact that not all men who identify as women are misogynists, but mostly they keep their mouths shut out of fear of being harassed.
I'm grateful to trans activists like Blaire White and Corinna Cohn, who go the extra mile to defend women's sports and single-sex prisons and advocate for restrictions on the transitioning of children until they reach the age of majority.
You and I are in total accord on this. Stop pretending that male bodies don't have advantages over women's bodies in sport - even hormonally weakened male bodies are dominating. Some commenter I encountered asserted that there was no data to support the supposition that trans women will dominate women's sports. Well, the data is building and at some point, they will have to admit that it's incontravertible. As they will have to admit that increasing rapes and pregnancies in women's prisons point to a problem there.
Unlike 10 or so years ago, I deeply believe that an increasing percentage of trans women are male posturers seeking gain. They are not truly dysphoric at all. They are using the current, hysterical moment as cover to feed their egos and/or predatory urges. I can't prove this but my intuition is screaming at me.
In a few cases, TRAs are defending the right of convicted sex predators having access to women only spaces. It's a bit insane. How do they justify this?
The commenter "asserting there are no data to support the supposition that trans women will dominate women's sports" is not a serious person. Trans women are already dominating women's sports. Lia Thomas moved from a ranking of # 554 in the 200 yard freestyle (in men’s swimming) to #1 (in women’s swimming). Cycling is a sport where men are consistently beating women, to the extent that women are leaving the sport. Weightlifting...another sport where males consistently outperform females regardless of how they identify. Even once-in-a-generation tennis superstar Serena Williams has made it clear that she stands to gain nothing by attempting to compete against men: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hzHBsvj6C0
Here's a good article:
https://womenssportspolicy.org/the-womens-sports-policy-working-group-and-champion-women-praise-world-athletics-new-rules-affirming-the-womens-sport-category/
And here's just one study, done by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, which discusses the minimal change in performance by men identifying as women after a year of testosterone suppression:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289906/
"Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage"
Finding: "Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed.”
https://reduxx.info/italy-trans-identified-male-takes-home-eighth-womens-running-championship/
There is no justification for allowing male sex offenders to be housed in women's facilities, but this hardly matters. And your belief that an increasing percentage of trans women are male posturers seeking gain makes perfect sense to me. Why wouldn't they, if they can get away with it? There's no vetting of any kind.
https://womensliberationfront.org/letters-from-incarcerated-women/he-had-no-intention-of-getting-rid-of-his-penis
Have you read or heard Helen Joyce on this issue? She's terrific. I'll leave you with this short clip from a full-length interview, which I urge you to listen to as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsuZreA8JOE
Ego is present when and wherever an identity label is self-applied, right, left, center or anywhere else on any spectrum. It's the narcissism, the sense of entitlement, and most of all the victimhood mentality that is so damaging. CRT/DEI posits that justice is impossible and the world is an evil place, where racism is the source of every ill. Who wouldn't be miserable if they believed that? The authors miss the larger point. These unhappy people know full well that they're unhappy. They revel in it. They choose to be miserable because of the sense of romantic nobility they believe their suffering imparts to them. Having once been a Catholic, I understand how people (mis)use their own suffering, turning it into a proof of their own spiritual purity. It's sick, masochistic, and totally ego driven. I see some skeptics on here about Tolle. I get it it. I'm not into the woo-woo either, but having read his books, I can attest that they do contain wisdom, mainly because they are grounded in the established traditions of both Western psychology and Buddhism, not simply some claptrap made up by the author, as is so much in the self-help business world.
Buddhism is foolish clap trap. And there is no coherent monolith that is “western psychology”. And even while Buddhism is foolish clap trap, Eckart Tolle is not “grounded in Buddhism”— modern authors often just allude to Buddhism as a source of authority for their own made up garbage, even if Buddhism is garbage too. Because lots of people have a naive reverence for it.
Our “egos” are a prime motivator for all of us. No one is exempt. Except for perhaps people with a brain illness. I don’t think Tolle has a brain illness; he is either a charlatan or has a profound lack of self-awareness. Maybe both.
There is no coherent monolith that is Buddhism.
Some "Buddhist" ideas are claptrap, certainly. Nihilism and solipsism can both find justifications in ancient Buddhist texts, and both are clearly nonsensical worldviews.
However, there is also a great deal of valuable insight in Buddhist teachings and practices. This is a culture which has existed for over 2500 years. Many brilliant individuals have contributed to Buddhist scriptures, including some alive today.
Before dismissing all of Buddhism as "claptrap", I highly recommend you read Mathieu Ricard's little book, Happiness - just to give one example.
Well worth anybody's time.
🙂🙏
Matthieu Ricard? The former king of Tibet’s personal servant and translator? The guy who for decades enabled the manipulative predator Sogyal Rinpoche?
I would not imagine someone who could be “happy” while behaving like Ricard did would be well positioned to understand happiness - or at least my own. Perhaps if I were some peculiar class of sociopath who could live contentedly without deep personal attachments in a cave while delusional worshippers ritually fed me, I’d look into his book. Although I’ve read the works of other frauds, so maybe I’ll pick up a used copy and read it out of curiosity some day.
Foundational Buddhism is sufficiently homogenous to judge it as a monolith. Just as Christianity is. Or Judaism. Or Islam. Or Mormonism. The distinct ideology that is found in the foundation of Buddhism is claptrap. Certainly everything said by any writer or philosopher that has expressed fealty to the Sith Lord Gotama isn’t claptrap. Just like not everything a Christian has written is claptrap. But it’s not meaningfully relevant in judging that Christian ideology is irrational and evil. I don’t care about the opinions of every random person in the past 2000 years who claims to represent the “true” Christian ideology. I suspect your opinion of “Buddhism” is probably as relevant to understanding Buddhism as a Mormon’s opinion of Christianity is to understanding Christianity.
One thing I’ll point out is that Buddhism didn’t first discover / invent / practice “meditation.” Even from Buddhist scriptures it’s clear that Gotama, or whoever invented Gotama, acquired their techniques of meditation from non Buddhists. Albeit it ultimately doesnt matter who first practiced meditation techniques, just like it doesn’t matter who first practiced whistling. But these days since Buddhism so often is associated with meditation, it’s a valuable thing to point out. Various forms of meditation are things some Buddhists do, not what Buddhism is. Just like how Hitler painted.
The biggest evils and horseshittery of Buddhism is found in its ethics, psychology, and eschatology.
And no one alive today has contributed to Buddhist scriptures. Just like no one alive today has contributed to Christian scriptures. I’d consider that an elementary classification flaw of what Christian or Buddhist “scripture” is, simply motivated by personal reverence. And no “brilliant” individuals contributed to either if we are to judge simply by the content of the scriptures, unless we are just using the word “brilliant” to refer banally to people who likely have an above average iq or show some sort of creativity, and it could apply to people, say, like Joseph Goebbels. Do you think “brilliant individuals” contributed to Nazi ideology? Do you affirm Joseph Goebbels was “brilliant”? Or are you just expressing a foolish reverence for Buddhism?
And the assumption you have made that I have judged Buddhism as claptrap without investigating it significantly is false. My judgement of Buddhism as claptrap rests on a comprehensive investigation—reading original scriptures and sympathetic authors throughout history, and related political and historical literature. An investigation more thorough than the ideology requires or deserves before one could reasonably declare it claptrap. I am a curious spirit.
Jeffrey, I don't know whether you are "some kind of sociopath", but you do seem a little hasty to rush to harsh judgments of other people about whom you clearly know very little.
Interestingly, one of the key messages of Buddhism is that it's possible to overcome that tendency to harshly judge people without evidence; indeed, by doing that, you also might stop harshly judging yourself, and that in turn might lead to greater personal happiness, leading in turn to a certain degree of gratitude, which tends to manifest as a greater interest in being kind and helpful towards others.
Some forms of Buddhism don't practice meditation at all; the Santi Asok sect in Thailand is one example of a very traditional, quite extreme form of Buddhism that bases practices on physical work rather than meditation. Others focus intensely on meditation; the Forest Monk tradition of Ajahn Chah being one good example.
Certainly there are a great many people contributing to Buddhist scriptures today. I mentioned Matthieu Ricard - a thoroughly decent man, who you are welcome to try to smear and insult by association with various other people, if you wish.
You may also have heard of some other great modern Buddhist teachers; I won't give you any more names, because I don't really want to read any more of your baseless insults about them.
You are under no obligation at all to study Buddhist practices or teachings, and you are welcome to continue insulting them if you like.
But in my experience, most people who take the time to study Buddhism don't seem to regret it; I know I don't. :-)
So before a lecture on not judging people harshly you imply that I may be some type of sociopath because I harshly judged someone you like? Did you learn that hypocrisy from studying Buddhism?
We clearly have different sentiments on Matthieu Ricard. The notion I have no evidence on his behavior — or lack thereof — is a bizarre assumption. He has already admitted to “regretting” it on his blog. Quite a long time after he engaged in it. The difference between him and I doesn’t seem to be the evidence, but the moral gravity. He feels hollow apologetics is sufficient. I do not.
It’s important to harshly judge people — especially when there is adequate justification to do so. Assuming a person doesn’t do the same thing as the person being harshly judged, a person neednt worry about judging themselves for it. And while people often times judge themselves excessively and too harshly, and can even be a manifestation of a brain illness, judging ourselves is *sometimes* part of the way non sociopaths can change and become better people. Some people actually don’t judge themselves harshly enough, such as Matthieu Ricard. That may sometimes be good for *their* “happiness”, but then again, much misery has come to others from people
with lots of power not judging themselves when they should — and people not judging people with lots of power when they should.
“ Certainly there are a great many people contributing to Buddhist scriptures today.”
Certainly there isn’t, except for the particular people who have decided to embrace that literature and call it “Buddhist scripture”, such as yourself. You are welcome to do so. And I am welcome to call that irrational.
“ You are under no obligation at all to study Buddhist practices or teachings, and you are welcome to continue insulting them if you like”
Perhaps you didn’t read my comment. I’ve studied Buddhism; I wouldn’t be surprised if I have studied it more than you. And I will continue to insult it. It’s deserved. Just like Scientology deserves to be insulted. And Nazism. Do you have a problem with insult in general or just of what you worship?
“ But in my experience, most people who take the time to study Buddhism don't seem to regret it; I know I don't. :-)”
I cannot say I regret studying Buddhism anymore than I can say I regret studying Nazism. Again, I am a curious spirit.
“ You may also have heard of some other great modern Buddhist teachers; I won't give you any more names, because I don't really want to read any more of your baseless insults about them.”
Great Buddhist teachers is a bit of an oxymoron, like Great Nazism teachers. Not all Buddhist teachers are horrible people, but preaching Buddhism is bad. Why don’t you want to read insults about the people you grovel? Sounds like “attachment” to me. You are failing at what your beloved teachers perniciously preach. Either you should futilely practice more or abandon the quixotic quest. I am guessing your devotion to the foolishness is way too strong for the latter, thus I will hypothesize you will proudly continue to eat your own face.
I don't see an argument here, just a misanthropic rant from another attention-seeking troll. Have fun with that.
I was making a statement of my belief, which was opposed to your belief. And your aggressive response provides some evidence for mine being true. Thanks. I’ll have fun with it.
“Misanthropic rant” — “attention-seeking troll”. How easy it sometimes is to to demonstrate the hypocrisy of people who preach against “the ego”.
It is actually “ego transcending” philosophies that are “misanthropic”, such as that of Tolle and Buddhism — displaying a deep disparagement of basic elements of the nature of the vast majority of humans. Only something inhuman could resemble the soul that they exult.
As for attention seeking—I do indeed have a need for loving and respectful attention from other humans. From you specifically, though, I do not. Your disrespectful attention may not provide for my needs, but it does serve as some evidence for that argument you were looking for.
Pauli Murray was a woman, and while gender atypical there seems no reason to refer to her as “he.” It’s possible that she would have embraced the title of transgender if she was born at a different time. It is also possible that she would have embraced herself as a gender atypical lesbian who could see herself as represented in the idea that there is no correct way to be a woman. We don’t know.
The tribe of one sure does sound like a lonely type of existence. But this article takes several leaps beyond "tribe of one" to equate that first with ego-centered existence and then to a liberal mentality in contrast to American conservatism. Both those leaps of logic are not entirely warranted. Consider the argument in reverse: are all liberals ego-centered? are conservatives NOT ego-centered? Surely some of the most ego-centric, socially impervious individuals on our national stage are GOP and MAGA. So, this logic fails.
Consider also: that being lost in depersonalization is pretty much the complete opposite of "ego-centric". Depersonalization and derealization are semi-psychotic states, not associated with a strong ego. That tribe of one who suffers depersonalization and derealization needs health-care, not political castigation.
Consider also: a strong, healthy ego (also called a "personality") is essential to healthy social life.
Maybe liberals see more of the actual problems with our contemporary civilization. Huge problems like anthropogenic climate change, massive extinctions, the massive incarceration rates in the USA and so forth: yes, those can put a damper on mental health. Ignoring those might let conservatives feel better, but that sense of well-being is like an ostrich with its head in the sand.
I try to hold my identity lightly and am irked when categorized by my physical particulars and cultural origins. These are characteristics I see as trivial compared to ways of attending-learning, emoting-thinking, acting and growing. I think it's unhelpful to redefine "tribe" and to redefine "egoism" as a "tribe of one". It does allow the authors say that egoism leads to egoism. I'm also boggled by statements that egoism may destroy a belief in spirit worlds and that happiness requires a blind certainty.
There is much that is objectionable about the woke left's criticism of individualism and its embrace of monolithic racial, ethnic and gender identity groups.
However, it beggars belief to assert, as the authors do, that:
"[T]he 'tribe of one' ideology is a major contributor to loneliness and poor mental health. Several studies have shown a consistent pattern wherein conservatives report better mental health than liberals."
This highly reductionist analysis is oblivious to the many other variables that can determine whether someone is struggling with loneliness and mental health problems. Common sense suggests that the "tribe of one" ideology is not nearly sufficiently pervasive among American liberals to cause a measurable degradation in their mental health. I submit that it takes effort and even intentionality to tap into the woke identitarian discourse, and that most liberals are unfamiliar with the particulars.
For one thing, the liberals who are most likely to think of themselves as, say, "members of the (insert name of marginalized identity group) community" constitute about less than half - 40 percent - of Democratic voters., according to Pew. Again, though, there really is no way of knowing whether four out of ten Dems are lonely and mentally unwell because of their embrace of identity politics. To rule out other causal factors more research is required.
If you're not anxious and paranoid, you're not paying attention.
If you're not anxious and paranoid, you're not paying attention.
Tribe of one mentality is not surprising considering the number of unintelligent, self absorbed, narcissistic and entitled people we have rounding out the population these days, reinforced by an always on, social media blitz of self aggrandizing buffoonery. The tyranny of the dumb is strong in our world.
There are some really good ideas in this article, but also some obvious errors.
Bringing in Eckhard Tolle and nondual spirituality as an antidote to the insane divisiveness of identity politics is an excellent idea, and something that can appeal to people on the "Hard Left" just as much as "conservatives".
If wokery is to be defeated, it must be defeated in the minds of socialists, centrists and conservatives alike.
Unfortunately, the simplistic analysis of the alleged link between mental wellness and right-wing political views destroys the article's credibility. It's well understood by almost everyone that crazy rich people are seen as "eccentric geniuses" while poor people with similar behaviours and mental states are routinely diagnosed with schizophrenia, OCD, or other mental disorders.
Trump, Hitler, Mussolini, Matt Hancock, etc., no doubt would report themselves as "perfectly happy with their mental health"; those around them might well report otherwise.
Since rich people tend to have more conservative views - due to simple self-interest - it is hardly surprising that conservatives are less likely to be diagnosed with mental health issues.
On the other side, since impoverished people are more likely to have Left views, again from simple self-interest, and since impoverished people are far more likely to be anxious, depressed, and traumatised by their miserable lives, it is hardly surprising that more Socialists than Tories report mental disorder diagnoses.
The article uses the vague, misleading term "Liberal" as a proxy for Left views; in fact many conservatives would describe themselves as classically liberal, while many socialists would reject that label. Was Stalin "liberal"? Was Mussolini "conservative"? Such misleading terms obscure whatever they are attempting to describe.
A mistake that often appears in right-leaning articles is the conflation of identity-politics and "the Hard Left". Actually, if you look at genuinely hard-left sources, such as the Trotskyite Fourth International web site (a surprisingly good global news source, www.wsws.org) they are consistently and strongly opposed to identity politics and wokery.
The British Tory Party, on the other hand, is very fond of "diversity" (meaning anti-white racism and anti-male sexism) and "inclusion" (meaning exclusion of those with differing opinions, such as Andrew Bridgen MP) even if it seldom mentions "equity".
The nonsense of "trans women are women" and the insanity of Critical Race Theory are much more prevalent among centrists - both centre-left and centre-right - than among genuine Marxists.
Remember the laughable BLM document which claimed their nakedly racist movement was led by "trained Marxists" - all in pursuit of large donations from multinational corporations.
The real hard Left has far more in common with open-minded, science-based conservatives than it does with racist, segregationist idiots like Robin DiAngelo or Ibram X. Kendy.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/05/20/iaek-m20.html
“ Bringing in Eckhard Tolle and nondual spirituality as an antidote to the insane divisiveness of identity politics is an excellent idea”
It is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever come across. And I would absolutely love to discuss it with you over Zoom. Would you be willing to record a discussion about it over Zoom and publish it on YouTube / Rumble?
Jeffrey, I'm happy to talk about it with you about it right here.
You say you think it's "stupid" to recommend nondual spirituality as a method to overcome divisive identity politics; so clearly you don't know much about nondual spirituality, because that's exactly what it's for.
Nondual, not divided, is precisely the opposite of divisive; and fixed, permanent identities are exactly the thing that nondual philosophies teach people how to liberate themselves from.
Whether it's Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or scientific pantheism - all of which are in fact quite compatible - all these teachings help people to escape from limiting beliefs such as identifying themselves with race, gender, sexuality, nationality, etc., and see themselves instead as - well; as something that cannot be limited or even described in words; as what we really are.
I do hear your biting cynicism, and to some extent I feel your pain. But cynicism is not the wisest strategy; it does only bring pain, in the end.
If you look inside yourself and ask the honest question, "Who am I?" you might find that there is, in fact, something there that you don't feel in the least cynical about.
And once you've found it in there, look around; you might start to notice it in other places too. :-)
Taoism, Buddhism, “scientific pantheism”, Hinduism, all have significant differences in their ideologies. There is no perennial philosophy. I’ve studied quite a bit of philosophy and religion, and whatever it is that *you* think, isn’t probably what they taught. You might think so out of vanity that you have found the truth that underlies them all—but that is simply what it is, foolish vanity.
What you hear isn’t “cynicism”, it’s simply denigration of particular ideas. The notion that I am all cynicism and that if I just look inside myself I might find
something that isn’t is just idiotic slander. There is plenty of
things I don’t have cynicism about — for example, watermelon. Watermelon is absolutely delicious. But your attitude is clearly stupid. People should be cynical about *you* but it doesn’t mean people should be cynical about *everything*. You really need to work on that “non dualism” you are preaching. And cynicism can prevent pain sometimes.
We should have a zoom conversation because doing it here is much more tedious. And it would be much more valuable if I could publish it to YouTube. We have like 3 threads going here. I’ll probably stop responding. Join me on zoom. Don’t be scared. My twitter handle is meisterpeeps. Let’s set it up. We can even have one that isn’t recorded first if that makes you more comfortable . Let’s chat.