A Renaissance of Thought, Speech, and Association: The Paradoxical Gift of Radical Islam and the SJW Movement

Hello and welcome!

I noticed this morning some overt signs of a trend that appears to be emerging in our collective social dynamic. It seems to be arising in response to a culture of rabid divisiveness, group identity politics, and, particularly from the regressive left, contempt for the universal right to think, speak, and associate freely.

People are getting fed up with being labeled, put in a box, invalidated, attacked, cut off, and silenced for daring to have and express their own thoughts and ideas that don't conform to some supposed standard. This attitude of intolerance has been most virulent and visible in the SJW movement, which is now the laughingstock of YouTube thanks to its juvenile tactics and ridiculous lack of realism and reasoning ability. The toxic, malignant front of ideological dogmatism and us-versus-them herd mentality has become so perfectly crystallized in the SJW movement that it is provoking a serious backlash among free thinkers of all stripes.

These entropic tendencies are certainly not exclusive to the group I'm pinpointing. The point is that this group, aided and abetted by mealy-mouthed cowards and wolves in sheep's clothing in politics, academia, and the media, exemplifies them to a degree that pushes the rest of us up against the wall. We are literally facing a threat of totalitarianism that could extinguish what remains of the light of Western society if we don't unite and push back.

People often express bemusement at the cognitively-dissonant alliance between the social justice movement and Islam, the latter being the epitome of inequality, intolerance and hate in our world today. But the alliance makes perfect sense. They share a common enemy. The intellectual dishonesty and fevered unconscious projection of the cult of post-modern, cultural-Marxist orthodoxy mask the fiery hatred and thanatotic self-loathing at its core. This core, I suggest, is of like emotional frequency with the distress that underlies radical Islamic fundamentalism. Both embrace violence as a final solution. Both are expressions of a mind-virus that knows no peace but the vision of a tightly-enforced uniformity that can never be achieved and will never result in real peace.

The manifest pathology of these two factions, embodying as they do some of humanity's most destructive psychological distortions, holds up a mirror to the rest of us. Their campaign to wipe out and colonize their enemies is so clearly a path to spiritual, cultural, and even physical extinction that we who oppose that campaign are forced to confront the demons they represent, first within ourselves, in order to be able to counter the destructive frequencies of consciousness that assail us from within and without.

We're beginning to see that we can't afford to remain cloistered in our islands of ideology, lobbing cheap shots at each other for the approval and amusement of our fellow islanders. These islands are illusory to begin with. We must see that there is only a web of humanity composed of individual nodes, all intimately interconnected yet distinct universes, and that that shared fabric of society rises or falls as one.

We're beginning to realize that we can't afford to maintain the barriers that keep us from engaging in civil discourse with people we disagree with. That disagreement itself is a natural thing that need not overshadow an underlying sense of unity, of being ultimately on the same side as human beings.

We're starting to see the need to reach out to and support others regardless of ideological differences. We're seeing that openness, critical thinking, and diversity of opinion and perspective are what keep us vibrantly engaged in a robust evolutionary process of growth and refinement leading to synthesis, integration, and true enlightenment.

We're being called to arm ourselves with knowledge, to develop the maturity and learn the principles and skills needed in order to have fruitful, meaningful discussions. To learn to think clearly and formulate well-considered positions. To smelt the ore of information, separating the dross from the valid and useful.


Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom: The Trivium




Those of us who were never taught the Trivium in school, who were cheated of a real education, must now take remedial steps to educate ourselves. This intellectual foundation is indispensable for a free and functioning society, and developing it is a lifelong journey for each of us. The way we do it is by practicing these elements in the real world of our day-to-day issues and interactions, right down to the personal level.

The other area for development, which I alluded to already, is the emotional realm. We can't be intellectually honest or truly civil without also resolving our emotional wounds and attachments. It takes courage to face the monsters we've buried, but that is what we must do. To kindle and act on that courage is something we all have the ability to do. It takes a critical mass of danger and discomfort to push us over that threshold, and we can thank the new inquisition for doing their part to provoke our innate immune response.

Remember: healing in the body only takes place when there's enough serotonin and other "feel-good" neurochemicals in the system and when levels of cortisol, the stress hormone, are low enough. That means the key is to consistently make choices that make us feel deeply better inside, more whole, at peace, and energized. Each of us knows what those choices are if we just listen closely to our real inner voice.

There is hope. We have what we need to pull through and create a renaissance together. We just have to step up and do our best. I believe in myself. I believe in you. I believe in all of us. Let's do it.



~



Here are the videos that prompted me to write this post today:



You Can't Sit With Us! | Purity Spirals & Group Cannibalism

"Why do groups demand perfect ideological conformity? What does it lead to and how can we avoid purity spirals, ingroup fighting and cannibalism?"

Huge Win in the Battle of Ideas

"We're taking back the narrative from people who use buzzwords and outrage to silence the rest of us who are trying to have meaningful conversation."

Why Free Speech (even Hate Speech) is the best friend of the Oppressed

Jonathan Rauch makes a passionate argument in favor of free speech, and tells an inspiring story of Frank Kameny using his free speech to overcome bigotry and discrimination.

McMasters University activists shout down visiting professor Jordan B. Peterson; professor makes it a teaching moment

What some on the far left (and the far right as well) fail to understand is that the alternative to civil discussion and debate is a descent into uncivilized behavior: shouting slogans, slinging weaponized words, attacking ad hominem, denying a platform to those you disagree with, abandoning the level playing field of ideas in favor of animalistic noise-making and shows of strength. They may not have fully considered where that path leads.

If your ideas are worth considering, then they are worth formulating and presenting with care and civility and arguments to back them up. Let them loose on the level playing field of free speech where they can be tested on their merits. If you arrogate to yourself the right to shut others down, you place yourself in a value system, in an arena, where someone with more brute strength than you can shut you down as well. Two sides engaging on this level set off a cycle of escalating conflict that can only end tragically.

Healthy public debate isn’t a death match between colliding interest groups. It’s the way we reach consensus as a community and more whole understanding as individuals. It is a natural and peaceful mechanism for achieving wisdom, balance, and inclusion in our collective decisions.

We need not fear each others’ voices. In fact, we desperately need to hear each others’ authentic voices so that we can see where we agree and where we don’t and A. build bridges of understanding and acceptance, B. approach the truth together, and C. determine the path that will best serve us going forward. This requires open, free, intellectually honest exchange between individuals based on a shared sense of unity (our common humanity), allowance for diversity (the breathing space for everyone to be, express, and develop uniquely), and a common interest in discovering truth (humility and openness to being corrected as well the integrity to stand up for what we directly perceive as truth).

When we engage in true dialogue, we are tuning the instrument of our mind to resonate with truth. That means changing our ideas when they come into conflict with what is demonstrably true and holding steadily to truth in the face of what is demonstrably untrue. Post-modernism repudiates the very notion of truth and therefore represents anti-logic. It is based on self-referential, circular reasoning that collapses in the face of logic.

In this video, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson calmly explains why we need free speech and why the best thing to do about the anti-free speech activists is to let them play out their tactics while we keep speaking our truth to the best of our ability and defending everyone’s right to be heard.

The activists speak. We let them speak and make their positions known. We weigh their ideas on the impartial scales of truth along with every other idea. We let their behavior speak for itself as all behavior does. As long as they do not engage in debate, they render themselves irrelevant to the debate. You don’t debate a child who’s throwing a tantrum. You can’t. You stand calmly in your truth and don’t budge for any manipulative, bullying tactics. Don’t give them the response they’re trying to provoke. Don’t feed the monster that’s acting out through them by answering in kind. Feed their better angel by setting an example through your own behavior.

As Matt Kahn advises, when faced with the fevered, conflicting energies of a turbulent, fractured mind, we can consciously choose to respond with the opposite vibration. Peterson does an admirable job.

Activists chanting: “You are not a victim!”

Peterson: “That’s true. I'm not a victim.

“Once you start to regard yourself as a victim, you look for a perpetrator. And the thing you look for in a perpetrator, you look for someone that it’s OK to hurt. It’s really not a good thing.”

Activists chanting: “Shut him down!”

. . .

Peterson: “As far as I’ve been able to determine, this kind of protest is an expression of a philosophy that’s grounded partly in post-modernism and partly in Marxism. Now, the post-modern element is basically this: there’s no such thing as genuine individual identity. What there is is group identity. And you, like it or not, only have the interests of your group. And the whole world is nothing but a battleground between groups of different interests. There’s no dialogue. There’s no possibility of talking between the groups. It’s just a power stage where combat has to take place.

“And so the reason that speakers with whom the radical post-modernists and the Marxists don’t agree are denied a platform is because those people do not believe, from a philosophical position, that dialogue can bring consensus. And all that’s left, if you forgo that particular principle, is this. [Indicates the protest.] And this is only where it starts.

“You know, the fact is that you’re all pretty damn civilized. And thank god for that. Because if there were enough fools in the crowd, especially those who are intent on violence, this would turn out very differently. We do not want to go down that pathway! It’s a big mistake. We’ve been down that pathway many, many times.”

. . .

Peterson: “The question was, had we called the police and had them removed, would that have been a failure?”

“I think the answer to that is there’s no point in it. There’s no reason to assume that this [protest] is a bad thing. It’s noisy and it’s annoying, but that’s fine. You gotta let things – you gotta follow what you believe to be true. Right? And don’t worry about it, and let things happen, and see what happens. Because it’s perfectly possible that if you’re trying to do the right thing, you’re trying to speak properly, that whatever happens around you is [partially a] consequence of that and it’s a good thing. So we’ll see. We’ll have weeks after this event to analyze its consequences. And so far, all of you that are there to listen to the talk, you’re peaceful and reasonable, and you got a chance to show that to hundreds of thousands of people. So, good! This is a good thing, not a bad thing.”

. . .

Peterson: [Repeating a question from the audience] “How do we get these people to understand that dialogue leads to consensus?

“You cannot make people who don’t listen, listen. You can’t. They have to decide to listen on their own. But you do that by listening. You show them. You engage in dialogue yourself and [seek] consensus among you. You lead by example. Because there’s no getting through this. [Indicates the protest.] It’s an ideological wall. And the harder you push against it, the larger it’ll become.

“Don’t worry about it. But don’t get pushed around. And don’t let people indoctrinate you.”