This is great stuff and very rich in details so it’ll take me a while to digest but with my usual excitable arrogance, I feel bound to make interjections so forgive me for the following.
The question “Would you rather be good or right?” implies that being “good” has nothing to do with being right. Indeed, the positioning of “right” in opposition to “good” suggests that “right” is “bad”! A very curious formulation! In fact – a formulation that practically confesses that the adoption of “goodness” means lying!
Spoiler alert! I’m now about to launch into a major rant:
Congratulations on keeping your cool amongst the pronoun pontificators and hypochondriac hysterics. Transgenderism is something I have zero tolerance for. And you don’t have to venture into an explication on the difference between idealism and materialism. Or rather, the obvious idealistic absurdity comes out by mere enquiry into the claims made on behalf of the trans contingent.
If a sexed being is not to be defined by physical characteristics, then by what? (And even those individuals who are born with indeterminate sex are indeterminate PHYSICALLY.) The inevitable conclusion is that if physicality is ruled out then there is nothing to fall back on but some nebulous “way you feel”.
But even that is precluded by the now familiar and long since accepted tendency of gays to “feel gay” i.e. to be attracted to the same sex as themselves. Are gay men “really women”? As so often with the trans issue, the very question seems to dissolve in a pool of sheer amorphousness. (And the homophobic dimension should be clear.)
The trans issue is one of those that tempts expansion that could go on indefinitely. As someone once said about discrepancies within the official account of 9/11, it’s hard to know where to start and where to stop.
For example, if “transwomen” are “really women” then straight men and gay women have no excuse NOT to be attracted to “transwomen”!
And then you have the bitterest dregs of this bizarre philosophy: You cannot turn a man into a woman or vice versa. If you try, you end up with a mutilated (neutered) person.
And none of the above has even touched on the most horrific aspect of this i.e. that children (by definition, prepubescents) are being encouraged to “question their sexuality”.
And THAT remark also opens up the weird chasm that now exists between “sexuality” and “gender”, the latter word now seemingly effectively erased from the language!
Now on extricating myself specifically from the trans issue, I find myself imagining the reaction of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky etc. were they all to somehow be “time warped” into the proceedings of these groups you attended. I’m sure they would assume they had inadvertently stumbled on some circus act.
“I could not find the main source of funding for the non profit”
Yes, tell me about it! The moment I see “non profit” I automatically assume intelligence setup.
“Big pharma does not care a wink for the actual health and well being of the public.”
I’d go further than that and say that Big pharma has a very keen interest in the illness and poor health of the public – so that it can keep everyone “ticking over” on “medications”, “treatments” etc. – all of which are I reality addictive money spinners.
This is great, George. I always appreciate your intelligent and lengthy comments. In regards to the transgender issue, I started reading a great book on the topic recommended by a friend that touches on much of what you mentioned. It’s called “On the Meaning of Sex” by Kajsa Ekis Ekman. I’m only part of the way through, but thus far she’s blown holes in the illogical claims of the trans movement.
My thoughts exactly about what Marx and Co. would think about the groups I attended. At the time I was imagining Lenin’s reaction to the pronoun ritual. Something tells me he would think it utterly RIDICULOUS.
I completely agree with your assessment of big pharma. This is an issue I’ve encountered with veterinarians as well. It’s quite depressing and makes going to the doctor quite stressful, knowing that they’re incentivised to make you sicker.
As to right being opposed to good, your observations are astute. This aspect of the question actually escaped my notice!
Also, George you always right the best comments on my pieces and John’s and the podcasts. I think it would be really cool if you started your own substack publication where you write about writing. Literary criticism or something like that. You are a gifted writer!
It’s not just Big Pharma. It’s the central mechanism of capitalism itself. I believe that Marx’s maligned essay “On The Jewish Question” refers to “hucksterism”. Ah yes here it is:
“What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.”
An unfortunate imputed correlation. But, if you remove the “Jewish” bit – which is obviously unnecessary – then this “hucksterism” is clearly connected to capitalism.
And so the central motor of capitalism is to generate money by whatever means can be used. One way of doing it is to deprive people of what ought to be theirs so that you can “sell it back to them”. My father used to say that “They’d privatise the air we all breathe if they could get away with it” and I’d roll my eyes at him ... only to realise now that he was absolutely correct.
The other way is the manufacture of desires. Shovelling out stuff that not only no-one wanted but which no-one had even thought of. Getting them hooked on plastic addictions.
And if you can MAKE people feel inadequate or unhealthy – or indeed actually MAKE them unhealthy, then it’s all for the better.
So everyone is made to feel that their hair is wrong, their eyes are wrong, their body shape is wrong etc. And of course sex is the BIG one!
The point is that no-one can ever be satisfied or content or healthy. Capitalism doesn’t work that way but in the opposite direction: “uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation” etc. Indeed it’s quite curious how this correlates to the situation in Israel (and in all previous imperialist expansion) where there must be an ever renewed justification for aggression i.e. offences “against the home nation” must be, as it were, supplied one way or another.
Yes, John has encouraged me to write my own substack. I suppose I’ve always suffered from a combination of laziness and timidity. John says it’s very therapeutic. Well who knows?
💯💯💯 I agree, you are absolutely right in your analysis of capitalism here. I feel like there is a tendency for people to view capitalism at a surface level and only see the way in which it creates inequality without seeing the deep ways that it affects our psyches. Well hopefully you try out writing a longer piece! I definitely think writing is therapeutic. It helps me from exploding with frustration at the absurdities of the world.
It is hard not to be impressed by your scholarship, logic, and critical analysis. Kudos! Keep up the “right” work! Just new to your work. Will have to read more.
What a comprehensive, astute and excellent piece of writing, deserving of much praise. Bravo! I appreciate it so much. I also enjoy George's comments on Aesthetic Resistance as well as these
There are now whole shelves worth of non politics people can choose from: veganism, scepticism, antinatalism, primitivism and many more. possibly other people see it differently but in my experience these ideologies are so designed that their adherents become immune to reason and argument. the doctrines look logical and thorough in their scholastically sophistication but in practice when you talk to one of the converts it is plain that their effect is to refuse any real dialogue. there is no real way to really argue with a committed vegan. of course you can adopt a vegan diet but veganism is something completely different. these are very clever weapons, they look logical, intelligible but their attractiveness is their emotional charge as you also noticed. these 'modern' people are as dogmatic as anyone in human history. but that is also wrong because they don't have real dogmas, a genuine dogma of a christian or a muslim you can respect but an adherent of trans-genderism doesn't have one of those, it is all contradictory, all the principles cancel each other out. in the end you are left with some yearning, confusion and confused anger. the whole thing is frighteningly deep in my opinion. you can't talk to them but they can't endure their own silence neither. a vegan can only talk with another vegan. like you mentioned about the covid issue, with someone who believes in the covid religion you have to completely avoid that issue or you'll come to blows. they don't listen and reason, knowledge or logic are no help. reich called this phenomenon the 'emotional plague'. reich was killed for a reason.
hi, while I was reading your piece I remembered a writing by Ho Chi Min: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1960/04/x01.htm
Thank you for this, a great little piece!
This is great stuff and very rich in details so it’ll take me a while to digest but with my usual excitable arrogance, I feel bound to make interjections so forgive me for the following.
The question “Would you rather be good or right?” implies that being “good” has nothing to do with being right. Indeed, the positioning of “right” in opposition to “good” suggests that “right” is “bad”! A very curious formulation! In fact – a formulation that practically confesses that the adoption of “goodness” means lying!
Spoiler alert! I’m now about to launch into a major rant:
Congratulations on keeping your cool amongst the pronoun pontificators and hypochondriac hysterics. Transgenderism is something I have zero tolerance for. And you don’t have to venture into an explication on the difference between idealism and materialism. Or rather, the obvious idealistic absurdity comes out by mere enquiry into the claims made on behalf of the trans contingent.
If a sexed being is not to be defined by physical characteristics, then by what? (And even those individuals who are born with indeterminate sex are indeterminate PHYSICALLY.) The inevitable conclusion is that if physicality is ruled out then there is nothing to fall back on but some nebulous “way you feel”.
But even that is precluded by the now familiar and long since accepted tendency of gays to “feel gay” i.e. to be attracted to the same sex as themselves. Are gay men “really women”? As so often with the trans issue, the very question seems to dissolve in a pool of sheer amorphousness. (And the homophobic dimension should be clear.)
The trans issue is one of those that tempts expansion that could go on indefinitely. As someone once said about discrepancies within the official account of 9/11, it’s hard to know where to start and where to stop.
For example, if “transwomen” are “really women” then straight men and gay women have no excuse NOT to be attracted to “transwomen”!
And then you have the bitterest dregs of this bizarre philosophy: You cannot turn a man into a woman or vice versa. If you try, you end up with a mutilated (neutered) person.
And none of the above has even touched on the most horrific aspect of this i.e. that children (by definition, prepubescents) are being encouraged to “question their sexuality”.
And THAT remark also opens up the weird chasm that now exists between “sexuality” and “gender”, the latter word now seemingly effectively erased from the language!
Now on extricating myself specifically from the trans issue, I find myself imagining the reaction of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky etc. were they all to somehow be “time warped” into the proceedings of these groups you attended. I’m sure they would assume they had inadvertently stumbled on some circus act.
“I could not find the main source of funding for the non profit”
Yes, tell me about it! The moment I see “non profit” I automatically assume intelligence setup.
“Big pharma does not care a wink for the actual health and well being of the public.”
I’d go further than that and say that Big pharma has a very keen interest in the illness and poor health of the public – so that it can keep everyone “ticking over” on “medications”, “treatments” etc. – all of which are I reality addictive money spinners.
I intend to add to this in due time!
This is great, George. I always appreciate your intelligent and lengthy comments. In regards to the transgender issue, I started reading a great book on the topic recommended by a friend that touches on much of what you mentioned. It’s called “On the Meaning of Sex” by Kajsa Ekis Ekman. I’m only part of the way through, but thus far she’s blown holes in the illogical claims of the trans movement.
My thoughts exactly about what Marx and Co. would think about the groups I attended. At the time I was imagining Lenin’s reaction to the pronoun ritual. Something tells me he would think it utterly RIDICULOUS.
I completely agree with your assessment of big pharma. This is an issue I’ve encountered with veterinarians as well. It’s quite depressing and makes going to the doctor quite stressful, knowing that they’re incentivised to make you sicker.
As to right being opposed to good, your observations are astute. This aspect of the question actually escaped my notice!
Also, George you always right the best comments on my pieces and John’s and the podcasts. I think it would be really cool if you started your own substack publication where you write about writing. Literary criticism or something like that. You are a gifted writer!
It’s not just Big Pharma. It’s the central mechanism of capitalism itself. I believe that Marx’s maligned essay “On The Jewish Question” refers to “hucksterism”. Ah yes here it is:
“What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.”
An unfortunate imputed correlation. But, if you remove the “Jewish” bit – which is obviously unnecessary – then this “hucksterism” is clearly connected to capitalism.
And so the central motor of capitalism is to generate money by whatever means can be used. One way of doing it is to deprive people of what ought to be theirs so that you can “sell it back to them”. My father used to say that “They’d privatise the air we all breathe if they could get away with it” and I’d roll my eyes at him ... only to realise now that he was absolutely correct.
The other way is the manufacture of desires. Shovelling out stuff that not only no-one wanted but which no-one had even thought of. Getting them hooked on plastic addictions.
And if you can MAKE people feel inadequate or unhealthy – or indeed actually MAKE them unhealthy, then it’s all for the better.
So everyone is made to feel that their hair is wrong, their eyes are wrong, their body shape is wrong etc. And of course sex is the BIG one!
The point is that no-one can ever be satisfied or content or healthy. Capitalism doesn’t work that way but in the opposite direction: “uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation” etc. Indeed it’s quite curious how this correlates to the situation in Israel (and in all previous imperialist expansion) where there must be an ever renewed justification for aggression i.e. offences “against the home nation” must be, as it were, supplied one way or another.
Yes, John has encouraged me to write my own substack. I suppose I’ve always suffered from a combination of laziness and timidity. John says it’s very therapeutic. Well who knows?
💯💯💯 I agree, you are absolutely right in your analysis of capitalism here. I feel like there is a tendency for people to view capitalism at a surface level and only see the way in which it creates inequality without seeing the deep ways that it affects our psyches. Well hopefully you try out writing a longer piece! I definitely think writing is therapeutic. It helps me from exploding with frustration at the absurdities of the world.
It is hard not to be impressed by your scholarship, logic, and critical analysis. Kudos! Keep up the “right” work! Just new to your work. Will have to read more.
Thank you! I will definitely keep writing
What a comprehensive, astute and excellent piece of writing, deserving of much praise. Bravo! I appreciate it so much. I also enjoy George's comments on Aesthetic Resistance as well as these
here.
Thank you for the kind words! I really appreciate it. Yes, George is a great commentator. I always enjoy reading what he has to say.
There are now whole shelves worth of non politics people can choose from: veganism, scepticism, antinatalism, primitivism and many more. possibly other people see it differently but in my experience these ideologies are so designed that their adherents become immune to reason and argument. the doctrines look logical and thorough in their scholastically sophistication but in practice when you talk to one of the converts it is plain that their effect is to refuse any real dialogue. there is no real way to really argue with a committed vegan. of course you can adopt a vegan diet but veganism is something completely different. these are very clever weapons, they look logical, intelligible but their attractiveness is their emotional charge as you also noticed. these 'modern' people are as dogmatic as anyone in human history. but that is also wrong because they don't have real dogmas, a genuine dogma of a christian or a muslim you can respect but an adherent of trans-genderism doesn't have one of those, it is all contradictory, all the principles cancel each other out. in the end you are left with some yearning, confusion and confused anger. the whole thing is frighteningly deep in my opinion. you can't talk to them but they can't endure their own silence neither. a vegan can only talk with another vegan. like you mentioned about the covid issue, with someone who believes in the covid religion you have to completely avoid that issue or you'll come to blows. they don't listen and reason, knowledge or logic are no help. reich called this phenomenon the 'emotional plague'. reich was killed for a reason.