In June of this year, Eric Kaufmann, a heterodox social scientist in the UK who (amazingly) had University of Buckingham create a Centre for Heterodox Social Science, convened a conference titled, Post-Progressivism?: Toward a New Social Science, which included both academic and non-academic speakers.
For those of us in the United States of America…In designing our Constitution, the Founders took into account what they had learned of history. Written down for us in that document are humanity’s Lessons Learned. In their First Amendment, they explicitly tell us that government subsidies of religious establishments are a bad idea and therefore prohibited.
Yet, when given a slightly modified case, their ancestors (us) seem not to be able to connect the dots here. Woke ideology is a quasi-religious philosophy. In not understanding this, and not discussing it, we are failing there exam. The authors of this manifesto should be talking about this. You readers and commenters should be talking about this.
Perhaps we should consider updating the language of the First Amendment to include “philosophy.” For example:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or philosophy, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Thoughts?
And, while we’re at it, let’s discuss our state constitutions from which our state governments gain power to fund such philosophies.
Social justice philosophy subsidized by government is equivalent to religion subsidized by government. Social justice philosophy is quasi-religious.
Very happy to included in the signatories--a virtual nobody academic in comparison to many there, but trying to help in a small way. Isn't there an area of research about nudges?--I guess I try to nudge things back towards sanity and achieve a millimeter per year whilst others have larger voices.
i think it would help immensely if we stopped referring to the study of humans as a "science". any field - social, political, historical - if it uses the word science to define it deserves to have that word in scare-quotes... esp political "science."
I have gone back and forth on this, and currently I wish to reclaim the word "science". All positive-connation words tend to be coopted and eventually watered down, but we still need a word for the original meaning of the thing.
I'm in agreement with most of this, but find the title deeply off-putting. We have to cede so much rhetorical ground to our academic opponents that they get to be the progressives and we're the... non-progressives? regressives? Or has the time of progress just come to an end? Fuck that.
The problem with “manifestos” such as this is that so often their foundation is false. By the 1960s, across much, perhaps most, of America, the idea the minorities - in particular blacks - were being excluded because of their race is absurd. They were INcluded because of their race even though they demonstrated - then and now - an inability to perform at the intellectual level required for post-secondary education and many jobs and careers.
Griggs didn’t come about because of racism, but because the IQ of Subsaharan Africans is too low for equal participation in a competitive First World economy, and people erroneously blamed racism rather than intelligence. As IQ research has continued, and no significant advances have occurred across three generations via affirmative action / DEI, and as our society becomes more complex daily, the idea that a cohort with an average IQ of 70 in a complex world requiring 115 just to understand the basics continues to distort discussions and policy.
Building a “new progressivism” starting from the falsity that racism is what’s holding back blacks is building on sand. It’s also quite stupid.
Bravo, Lee and fellow thinkers. I am thrilled to see an academic/professional/research response to the woke phenomenon. I no longer occupy a role in academia but remain deeply interested in the issues. I look forward to the insights coming out of your collaboration. Gary Sweeten
For those of us in the United States of America…In designing our Constitution, the Founders took into account what they had learned of history. Written down for us in that document are humanity’s Lessons Learned. In their First Amendment, they explicitly tell us that government subsidies of religious establishments are a bad idea and therefore prohibited.
Yet, when given a slightly modified case, their ancestors (us) seem not to be able to connect the dots here. Woke ideology is a quasi-religious philosophy. In not understanding this, and not discussing it, we are failing there exam. The authors of this manifesto should be talking about this. You readers and commenters should be talking about this.
Perhaps we should consider updating the language of the First Amendment to include “philosophy.” For example:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or philosophy, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Thoughts?
And, while we’re at it, let’s discuss our state constitutions from which our state governments gain power to fund such philosophies.
Social justice philosophy subsidized by government is equivalent to religion subsidized by government. Social justice philosophy is quasi-religious.
A step forward against wokeness
Looks like a solid effort to me. I would support it!
Very happy to included in the signatories--a virtual nobody academic in comparison to many there, but trying to help in a small way. Isn't there an area of research about nudges?--I guess I try to nudge things back towards sanity and achieve a millimeter per year whilst others have larger voices.
Congratulations to you all and thank you for taking the initiative!
Looking forward to reading more about your work on Substack and elsewhere.
Referring to sodomites as "sexual minorities" is not a good start.
i think it would help immensely if we stopped referring to the study of humans as a "science". any field - social, political, historical - if it uses the word science to define it deserves to have that word in scare-quotes... esp political "science."
I have gone back and forth on this, and currently I wish to reclaim the word "science". All positive-connation words tend to be coopted and eventually watered down, but we still need a word for the original meaning of the thing.
I'm in agreement with most of this, but find the title deeply off-putting. We have to cede so much rhetorical ground to our academic opponents that they get to be the progressives and we're the... non-progressives? regressives? Or has the time of progress just come to an end? Fuck that.
i always put "progressive" in scare-quotes when i use it to describe the current claimants...
The problem with “manifestos” such as this is that so often their foundation is false. By the 1960s, across much, perhaps most, of America, the idea the minorities - in particular blacks - were being excluded because of their race is absurd. They were INcluded because of their race even though they demonstrated - then and now - an inability to perform at the intellectual level required for post-secondary education and many jobs and careers.
Griggs didn’t come about because of racism, but because the IQ of Subsaharan Africans is too low for equal participation in a competitive First World economy, and people erroneously blamed racism rather than intelligence. As IQ research has continued, and no significant advances have occurred across three generations via affirmative action / DEI, and as our society becomes more complex daily, the idea that a cohort with an average IQ of 70 in a complex world requiring 115 just to understand the basics continues to distort discussions and policy.
Building a “new progressivism” starting from the falsity that racism is what’s holding back blacks is building on sand. It’s also quite stupid.
https://open.substack.com/pub/alexanderscipio/p/cincinnati-thuggery-dei-and-reality?r=ownpk&utm_medium=ios
70? this seems highly dubious.
https://open.substack.com/pub/alexanderscipio/p/cincinnati-thuggery-dei-and-reality?r=ownpk&utm_medium=ios
Bravo, Lee and fellow thinkers. I am thrilled to see an academic/professional/research response to the woke phenomenon. I no longer occupy a role in academia but remain deeply interested in the issues. I look forward to the insights coming out of your collaboration. Gary Sweeten