I have been sorely tempted for some time to write an essay on the fallacies and moral fripperies of the #METOO movement.
Boorishness, insult, and unwanted sexual advances – or, God-forbid, assault (whatever that now means) – are never acceptable from either sex, and never have been.
But it seems to me that the descent of modernity from the lofty cultural and moral elevation supplied by verbal and gestural connotation, nuance, manners, graciousness, and so many other subtleties of human intercourse, to the baseness of mere literalism: the impoverished notion that a word or gesture conveys only what a speaker intended it to mean, or think they intended it to mean, at the most literal level, points to a sorry decline in human self-understanding.
Then, I stumbled on the following essay on this theme written by my colleague Professor Harley Price, who has kindly permitted me to publish it here. It forms a part of his upcoming book, Give Speech A Chance, about which I will say more when it appears in the coming months.
For now, do enjoy this multi-layered, deadly serious, but also seriously amusing critique of #METOO
Me-Tooism, and the Progressive Legal Principle of Subjectivity
It is admittedly hard for social conservatives not to take pleasure in the discomfiture of so many sanctimonious, progressive males who have been cut down by the biblical scourge known as the #MeToo movement.
In its long evolutionary ascent from unconsciousness to rationality; in its perennial struggle to emancipate itself from the tyranny of the group mind, the individuating human psyche has suffered innumerable regressions. There is no evidence that in the modern era we are beyond them, in spite of the cheery liberal historical myth of “progress.” Indeed, progressives, if for no other reason than their complacent faith in this self-congratulatory dogma, are more prone to psychic atavisms than any other group.
The #MeToo movement is surely one of the most terrifying irruptions of the primitive unconscious in recent memory. It is easy enough to enumerate its legal or logical errors, as so many commentators have already done, as though the movement were based on a set of coherent principles that can be rationally refuted. But no such refutation could possibly appreciate or contend with the demonic energy, boiling up from the deepest strata of the human psyche, that propels it along at reckless speed.
The first injunction of the #MeToo movement is to “Believe The Women”. Now, father Adam, when he was still in the state of innocence, might have been exculpated for following this advice and accepting the apple from Eve (as Eve might have been forgiven for taking Satan’s advice to “Believe The Serpents”). But we are no longer in Paradise, when crediting with immutable veridicality an entire gender (or species) might have been intellectually pardonable.
The myth of Paradise, as psychology correctly understands it, is an allegorical transcript of the pre-conscious infancy of the race. The same pre-conscious (or unconscious) phase of human psychic evolution is, of course, reprised in the infancy of every human life, when the child’s individual personality is so completely subsumed within and undifferentiated from that of his mother as to be identical with it. In the infant’s state of psychic identification, there are no dichotomies: no subject and object (only subject), no good or evil (only absolute conformity with the mother’s benevolent Will). It is only with the Fall that an awareness of these opposites emerges. The Fall is tragic because the emancipation of the individual personality from its unconscious submergence in the collective soul of the tribe brings with it painful choices and responsibilities, as does the fateful moment when the child’s blissful (paradisal) dependence upon its all-providing mother must end, and the child emerges as an autonomous Subject in confrontation with the recalcitrant Objects of a hostile world.
Here is a link to my article on “climate change” which has just been just published by the Epoch Times newspaper. It arrived on Trump’s desk the same morning.
The article asks a lot of questions that ought to be on the mind of any reasonable person.
And it is already attracting lots of attention. And if you think it is of interest and is asking the right questions, please do your part to circulate this piece, as I think the entire subject has mutated from a reasonable public and scientific concern into a quasi-hysterical social justice feeding frenzy.
The French Traveler is finally out, and available on Amazon, right here:
This is such a refreshingly frank and honest view of the extremely rugged and wild life of settlers and explorers – but especially of Iroquois and Huron Indians – in mid-Eighteenth-century Canada, that many readers get a bit of a shock.
Yes, a shock. First of all, a shock of delight at the stirring, but very honest, and seemingly innocent writing that gives an immediate sense of peeking through a keyhole in time, into a previously hidden world.
I say “hidden” because for most of us, that’s true. The truth of Indian life in particular, has been hidden from us by the left-liberal sanitization of texts and by politically-correct public conceits about the “Noble Savage” – who was in fact (as this book shows) often truly noble. But just as often, truly ignoble and savage, in very gruesome ways. Better be sitting down!
If you want a truly memorable and rousing reading experience that will also arm you for discussions about the truth of our past, you will find it in The French Traveler.
Finally, the truth is out. The following shocking statement is from Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution … This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
Well, now. It looks like Karl Marx, somewhat bedraggled from the thrashing he took by the end of the twentieth-century from the enrichment of the whole free world via free enterprise, has come straggling back onto the field of ideological battle, thermometer in hand, with some tattered temperature charts in his backpack, to inform us through his UN loudhailer, that because the earth may have warmed up a little over the last 100 years – possibly with a little help from anthropogenic causes – Kapitalism must be overthrown.
I have become embroiled in researching a column on climate alarmism and skepticism. Embroiled is the right word. It’s a mess of scientific controversy, academic mugging, and reputation-slurring.
In the process I have become much more skeptical myself as to the claims from all sides (though I am far more skeptical of government-backed “alarmists” such as as found in the UN’s IPCC reports, than of “skeptics” who attack them)
I have been reading passionate books on both the alarmist case , and on the skeptical case.
The best recent alarmist book is by Joseph Romm, Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know. It is very well done and easy to read. You may be able to download the book here:
The skeptical position is well-outlined in a publication by The Heartland Institute. It is also well done and very clear. During the last IPCC conference, Heartland ran an alternative conference down the street for its 700 member-scientists. This ought to indicate a healthy climate of debate, but I fear the two sides are just experiencing a hardening of the attitudes rather than working out their differences.
You can get this important dissenting study on the site below. Just go to the homepage and click “Download” to get a free pdf copy.
For those too busy to read the whole thing, there is a three-page executive summary that will shock most people who have swallowed the alarmist story whole.
In my opinion, the link established here between abortion and the new kind of slavery it engenders is of utmost importance. So, I encourage all readers of this piece to send it to your list of contacts and get the word out. Then, maybe, one day, as a people, we will be able to say: “I once was blind, but now, I see.”
The New York Editor wrote me the day after it was published to say “It landed on President Trump’s desk this morning.”
He is a regular reader of The Epoch Times, so that was fun to imagine he may have actually seen this piece.
Then, yesterday, I got a call from New York. It was a writer for Epoch Times calling to ask my opinion about Trump’s State of the Union address, and what did I think about all the socialism chatter in America these days?
I told him that because America’s Constitution and governmental structure were cobbled together specifically to make big government impossible, they will find themselves faced with a Constitutional crisis of major proportions if they continue in this direction. It would require a lot of Amendments, or a new Constitution entirely to make socialism legitimate in America.
So … I think Trump was right to say “America will never be a socialist country.”