Sunday 11 July 2021

*All* the core Leftist policies are Unnecessary/ Ineffective/ Harmful - the Triad of Evil

I recently described how the evil motivation of the birdemic peck could be inferred from the fact that it was unnecessary, ineffective and harmful. The entirety of the birdemic response... exactly the same. 

It later struck me that this Triad of Evil applies to All the core Leftist policies of 2021: all the Litmus Tests - all the Big Evil Lies

Think about the global transformation in alleged response to the CO2 Climate Warming Crisis Change Emergency ... each and all of the measures are unnecessary/ ineffective/ harmful. 

Think about antiracism - everything done in its name is unnecessary/ ineffective/ harmful. 

Or the sexual revolution - all the legislation to sustain 'human rights': unnecessary/ ineffective/ harmful. 

Or whatever is regarded as primarily important to do by the Global Establishment, the Mass Media, large institutions of all kinds... unnecessary/ ineffective/ harmful.

It is interesting to speculate why this should be - why the takeover of evil has been achieved by the same Triad of Evil - attitudes, priorities and policies that are conjured from nothing. 

The answer is that this is exactly how purposive evil works; it is exactly what would be expected when evil is dominant in the world. 

The strategic process of evil is, of course, driven by sin - and sin is the denial, negation, inversion of that reality which is God's creation. 

Since these times are by far the most evil in the known history of the world; of course the core strategic activities of the world in 2021 are unnecessary/ ineffective/ harmful.

The Triad of Evil is the new normal. 


Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

When I read your original “the Thing” post, it wasn’t obvious at first that you were talking about the peck, because the description fit so very many different evil Things!

Bruce Charlton said...

@Wm - That's what I realized too.

What is most striking to me is the *unnecessary* aspect. I noticed this a good while ago in terms that the 'old left' always focused on secondary issues. The primary economic issue is production of stuff - the size and efficiency of the economy; but the left take production for granted and instead focus on 'redistribution'. In education the left was largely indifferent to what is taught, how or how-well - and obsessed with 'access', equality of rankings, and the dishing out of certificates to the most oppressed/ most deserving...

I found this to be absolutely true at the time when I was working in leftist enclaves in public health. There was a mania for 'addressing' persisting/ increasing 'inequalities' (differentials, ratios) in health according to measures of social class; a mania that *completely* ignored absolute levels of health. The claim was that the ratio of various measure of health (such as life expectancy, perinatal mortality or whatever) between social classes had not changed over many decades, or maybe got worse in some places. Maybe so, maybe not - but the total focus on ratios covered as huge increase in average lifespan for *all* classes; a huge reduction in neonatal mortality for *all* classes - such data was not even listed.

It took Gregory Clark (A Farewell to Alms) to clarify for me that - biologically - the main beneficiaries of the industrial revolution were the poor, not the rich. The reason that there were so many poor in Victorian times, such a 'scandalous' problem of poverty - and the supposed reason for socialism - was that these poor people would have been dead a hundred years before.

After the industrial revolution; instead of dying, many people were surviving to be poor. And, instead of nearly-all the children of the poor dying before adulthood, some children would survive to adulthood. So the poor raised (alive, but living in poverty) maybe four, five, six children (the others died while still children, in large numbers - as they always had died). Such survival had never previously been possible...

This simple fact ought to have been obvious - since the population of Britain increased rapidly; but it was Not obvious because leftism focused attention on Secondary issues such as (relative) poverty, and (relative) health - where as the primary categorical difference of Alive versus Dead got completely ignored.

Even nowadays, the plight of the 'poor' minorities (e.g. aboriginal populations, nomadic migrants) completely obscures the fact that these minorities are thriving biologically (with populations sometimes doubling every twelve or fifteen years, and a median age in the middle teens) - while those wealthy minorities of European stock are headed for extinction from subfertility and median age rising through the late forties - this both at national and global levels.

In other words - we live in a world where at first the focus was on *secondary* issues to the total exclusion of primary issues - and from there we have moved to a world of *imaginary* issues.

The ground for this was prepared by emphasizing the 'global perspective' over the past half century - because we only 'know' about global stuff from global institutions - we have no direct unmediated experience of global population. wealth, health temperatures etc. It is all just 'statistics'.

And when the 'real things' are 'global'; and the global are the only important things; then the only real and important stuff is *statistics* -- then those who control the generation and analysis of 'authoritative' statistics control the world...

Avro G said...

Remind me of The novel “The Master and Margarita” where the Devil comes to town dispensing lavish gifts and cash which turn in a twinkling into grubby trash.

R.J.Cavazos said...

Reading your other posts reminded me of Menckens old saw--whatever happened to dictionaries? And then noted that Daniel Webster started his dictionary for he saw first hand how politicians and others distort words and their meaning. Similarly, so did Mencken in his history of the american language. Now everthing is a bombshell, a pandemic,an insurrection, a crisis, an emergency, etc, etc...

Bruce Charlton said...

"Whatever happened to dictionaries?"...

They got "updated" - *They* are using the latest edition, and rely on *us* understanding what older editions once said.