See here for the previous parts of this series: Quantum Non-Linearity: NAID Part IV: Evolution: Creation on Steriods (quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com)
 |
| Wesley J Smith channels the primordial fears fueling conspiracy theorism and by default furthers the cause of a certain D J Trump and his demagoguery |
I don't like politics. It is a messy business bound up with the complexities and foibles of a human nature, impossible to fully understand and render in neat formulaic expressions. Well, I suppose I was being naive when I thought the Evolution/Intelligent Design question could be approached from a purely mathematical angle and that politics wouldn't figure; in actual fact the subject is shot through with group identification, group think, and group camaraderie; how silly I was; what did I expect of a highly gregarious human animal? Moreover, since the appearance of a certain Mr. D J Trump and the far-right the question has become even more politised and like covid-mask wearing it has become a predictor of one's woke or unwoke status.
In this connection I was piqued by the following article on the North American ID website Evolution News written by a Wesley J Smith a man who I would place as part of the religio-political wing of the North American Intelligent Design community: See here:
Beware of the “Right to Health” | Evolution News
Wesley, it seems, is a specialist in human exceptionalism. I'd not disagree with him on human exceptionalism, but although not necessarily disagreeing with his conclusions I can almost guarantee that I'd disagree with the cultural route to those conclusions. Actually, come to think of it, I can bet that I'd also disagree with just what he means by "exceptionalism". But all that is another story, so back to his article. I reproduce the article below, but before I do some general comments.....
Since I wrote a series of posts in 2007 that I called "Mathematical Politics" my suspicions of both the collectivism of Maxism and the libertarian individualism of the far-right has only increased. In fact, I would go as far as to say that both, when pushed hard enough, are the gateways to dictatorships. Both try to sow distrust in the cut & thrust of democratic politics and its established institutions, e.g. democratic forums, the civil service, the police, the army, the judiciary, the media, academia, big tech, big pharma etc, which they believe to be harbouring malign highly self-interested parties. Both Marxists and libertarians have visions of doing away with "big government" which they will tell us is serving a quasi-anonymous elite. This sense of alienation and suspicion is what I refer to as proto-conspiracy theorism, a precursor which provides fertile ground for the more specific & detailed nonsense of conspiracy theorism such as QAnon and 5G-vaccine theories etc. The political fantasy goal of both Marxists and extreme libertarians is of a folksy decentralization, either in the form of communism or a thoroughly decentralized market. Both visions see government as part of the problem and therefore both seek the dismantling of the ramifying democratic state which they will portray as the enemy of the people. Much as the romantic idea of a decentralized society sounds attractive, just and fair, it would leave a dangerous power vacuum up for grabs by the demagogues who would emerge out of Marxism and libertarianism.
In his article Wesley takes the view that those ostensively good causes promoted by governments, quangos and technocratic elites in actual fact favor authoritarian control or may even be a cover story for those whose ambitions are power & social control. Let's recall that Marxism makes a similar claim: Viz: Government, whether we call it democracy or not along with its associated institutions, is there to support the interests of the propertied classes. But for those who see social reality through the spectacles of proto-conspiracy theorism, no obvious dictators pulling the strings are named; instead they lump people into malign classes and nefarious hidden actors who are identified as the cause of our problems with perhaps some individuals (like Bill Gates or Anthony Fauci) singled out as especially evil. In the malaise of a troubled democracy folk discontent readily latches onto these casts of hidden actors who are blamed for social woes and become a target popularists love to hate. This "who-can-we-blame" effect is readily exploited by demagogues who are looking to displace the complexities, contentions and cut-and-thrust of democratic & accountable government with the great simplifications of dictatorial and quasi-monarchical rule.
Wesley's article speaks for itself. As we see below it is full of how apparently good causes are being used as a cover story to influence the populace to accept the covert goal of authoritarian rule. In his article he names all the hot topics which make the blood of far-right pundits boil: Viz: Gun control, vaccinations, confiscation of intellectual property rights, rule by experts, the international technocracy, the WHO, the UN, Anthony Fauci, limiting fossil fuel use, climate change, human rights, "woke" philosophy, racism, welfare state, public health care, gender transitions, abortion, and more... These are all bad, bad, bad and set the pulses racing of those who have been baited by the idea that they are all pretexts for ultimate authoritarian control, just as Marxists will claim that government, the legal system, the police, the army and private property rights of the ruling class are a way of keeping the working classes in their place.
In Wesley's article below I've highlighted the inflammatory & emotive phrases:
Wesley J Smith: Wealth and wellness are becoming the primary justifications for international technocracy, or “rule by experts.” Indeed, we are told that preventing the next pandemic will require that the World Health Organization be given the power to declare pandemics and impose emergency policies internationally. Anthony Fauci went even further, arguing that that the UN and the WHO must be given greater powers to “rebuild the infrastructures of human existence.” Imagine the authoritarian potential.
We have been told, also, that climate change is a health emergency that justifies greater technocratic control. So is racism. Ditto, gun proliferation in the U.S. And we can’t forget the threats to biodiversity. On and on the proposed policy imperialism goes. This is why the seemingly good-sounding proposal for an international “right to health” is such a trap.
A Purported Right: As an illustration, the Lancet just published an article seeking to push this purported right into international law. Note the expansive scope of the proposal. From “Revitalising the right to health is essential to securing better health for all” (my emphasis):
The right to health is a duty held by all states under international human rights law and covers a range of entitlements, including available, accessible, acceptable, and good quality health care for mental and physical health, along with freedoms such as bodily autonomy. The right to health also extends to the underlying determinants of health — those factors, such as the rights to safe drinking water and to adequate food, which are integral to human dignity. Health is a fundamental human right that is indispensable for the exercise of other human rights and essential to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
That covers just about the entire range of contemporary international technocratic ambition, including the desire to do away with fossil fuels, establish worldwide abortion absolutism and a right to access “gender transitions,” attack the ability of meat and dairy producers to remain in business and family farmers to properly fertilize their fields (as we have seen in Europe, lately), etc. Indeed, the advocacy is steeped with a voracious technocratic grasping for power. To wit:
The report of the International AIDS Society–Lancet Commission underscores the centrality of human rights to achieving better health for all, discussing many of the key issues that require urgent attention. Newer challenges include the worsening impacts of the climate crisis and the potential harms emanating from digital technologies, especially generative artificial intelligence, which continue to advance in a regulatory vacuum.
Efforts to advance the right to health must also involve consideration of the impacts of commercial companies, given their practices that are too often inconsistent with their responsibility to respect human rights — for example, on pricing and distribution of medicines and vaccines.
Good Grief: Under this guise, almost everything becomes about “health,” and authoritarian powers — such as the ability to suspend intellectual-property rights during a health “emergency,” as is already proposed — are justified under a so-called human-rights economy.
At the national level, embracing the Human Rights Economy approach — a concept that places people and the planet at the core of economic policy making — can promote investment in health care and other social goods.
A Human Rights Economy can also drive effective action to end power disparities — often the painful legacy of slavery, colonialism, and racist and patriarchal structures — that perpetuate discrimination and marginalisation, entrenching inequalities and inequities.
Yes, I do get the drill Wesley! You are a proto-conspiracy theorist and all this plays into the hands of far-right demagogues and conspiracy theorists. Well, OK those government institutions & quangos are composed of flawed human beings and therefore self-interest and error always lurks in the background; cockups and cover-ups are frequent. But when these failings are exposed, fearful and imaginative conspiracy theorists all too easily weave them into the fabric of their paranoid and highly organized macro-conspiracy fantasies; this appears to be a coping strategy in the face of the chaos and randomness of the human condition. But I would maintain there is no organized macro-conspiracy needed to explain this condition; common-or-garden human sin and epistemic limitations are enough.
Wesley is adding fuel to the fires of fear, discontent and alienation. What is notable is that he names no authoritarian leader who is behind the plot striving to get into the cockpit of society; instead, he just stokes up resentment, blame and above all fear. He fails to see that the real dangers come from identifiable autocrats & potential autocrats who when their guile fails will use threat and coercion to impose their will. It is also notable such authoritarian leaders stoke up popularist fears and have a history of exploiting conspiracy theories and lies to apportion blame on covert actors that the popularists believe have got-it-in-for-them. See here for more on why I believe conspiracy theory to be a false theory society. (See also here)
I would challenge Wesley's understanding of how a society works and in particular the dynamic of societal authoritarianism; the means of authoritarianism is, as always, the good old fashioned overt dictator working through a brutal secret police. So, look out for the up and coming "strong-men" and not those ostensively good international causes no matter how misguided they might be; whilst accountable democracy still exists these causes can be openly argued over.
Nevertheless, I have some sympathy with the reaction of the NAID community of which Welsey is part. They have been rejected by a highly secularized academic community, a community who have lost their way in regard to the meaning of life; they can only offer emptiness when in fact human instincts about ultimate purpose & meaning actually point elsewhere. But the NAID community, as I have tried to show in this series, haven't helped themselves with the kind of nonsense they have served up and things have only got worse with them as they have accepted the welcoming embrace of the far-right. But they do have fragments of a case at least worth considering. Writing-off that case wholesale as pseudo-science has only help fuel the grievance politics that motivates Trumpite popularism and blights the academic community in the popularist imagination.
I'm pretty sure Wesley, like Ken Ham, will be voting Trump, and in doing so he'll be voting for authoritarian control with knobs on.
Relevant Links:
1. Libertarians boo & heckle Trump!
See the links below for the complex pattern of divisions in the ranks of the far right, probably down to the inner contradictions of libertarianism: Try and reduce society to a folksy decentralized level and the demagogues of would-be authoritarian government rush into the power vacuum. These libertarians are finding out what "draining the swamp" means and are in collision with the unintended consequences of their views.
Trump suffered a 'stunning rebuke' in disastrous Saturday night speech: analyst (msn.com)
2. Evidence that the Trumpism is an entryist party and not Republican or conservative.
If Trump becomes dictator, pro-Putin Steve Bannon could jostle to be the next in line. He's a lot brighter than Trump and he's riding on Trump's back. Notice that he uses pseudo-Marxist terminology at one point. If my guess at the long term is correct, then if the Trump/Bannon party get into power they'll form an alliance with Russia against China. So, if you are listening China, there's something there for you to think about.
Trump's nomination could be 'stolen' by establishment conservatives, warns Steve Bannon (msn.com)
Some Quotes:
Donald Trump’s nomination as Republican candidate for President could be stolen by establishment conservatives, a close Trump advisor has warned.
Speaking exclusively to GB News, Stephen Bannon said that supporters of Nikki Haley, a previous opponent of President Trump, could attempt to “steal the nomination from Trump”.
“They think they have a plan like Cruz had in 2016 to actually try to steal the nomination from Trump at the convention which he should win overwhelmingly.”
“And the reason is they're conservatives, they only mouthed the principles of conservatism. They don't realise you also have to fight for those values"
In his exclusive hour-long sit down with GB News America, Bannon also warned of a potential third world war and slammed the (UK) Conservative Party as Left-wing “liars”.
He described the current system as “late-stage finance capitalism in the City of London, late-stage capitalism and now becoming techno feudalism”.
No comments:
Post a Comment