The Despicable, Despotic "Consensus"

Mr. C and I watched Eric Weinstein interviewed about the Intellectual Dark Web last night. I highly recommend it. 

I'm not in full agreement with "progressive" Weinstein about everything. I think it's been clearly demonstrated that the only way to promote human flourishing (make real "progress") is to acknowledge broken human nature and try to tame it and direct it toward the good. There's nothing better for a) defining "the good" objectively (on the premise that there is objective truth and good) and b) inculcating virtues of chastity, prudence, self-control. . . than religion, and in particular, Judaism and Christianity. Weinstein seems to think human flourishing is dependent on technological and scientific advancement. As a mathematician and physicist, he would. But, I'd argue that's demonstrably untrue. Read Alexander Zubatov's We Are Living in the Ruins of Our Civilization. 

But, one thing Mr. C and I agree adamantly, passionately, vociferously with Weinstein about is the utter civilizational destructiveness of the "consensus," group-think orthodoxy that's taken hold of our society. As Weinstein says, "consensus" is all about incentives, and more importantly, disincentives to openly expressing novel ideas -- many of which turn out to be exactly the kind of innovative thinking that advance the common good. At minimum, even wrong ideas can stimulate the kind of conversations that lead to good and true ideas. But, only if we're allowed to have those conversations. 

While Mr. C and I are just now becoming fully aware of the strength of our aversion to the "consensus," we realize it started some time ago with the "scientific consensus" on Climate Change. The phrase always rubbed us the wrong way, given that "consensus" is not how science works. It doesn't matter what "most scientists" think if they're wrong. In the pursuit of scientific truth, a hypothesis is proposed and tested. If the hypothesis fails to pan out under scrutiny, it is adjusted and tested again. If testing seems to confirm the hypothesis, and repeated testing by independent parties comports with earlier positive results, it may become a theory over time. But, the inquiry never ends. The hypothesis/theory is either repeatedly challenged under new conditions or is disproven and scrapped. Climate Change "science" is a mess due to its untestability (complexity and expansive time spans) and corruption by political actors (ahem, Al Gore).  Computer models are not data, and computer models which fail to be predictive like the ones we have now, are only useful in that they show scientists they're on the wrong track. But try telling that to "believers" in climate "science."

So why has "consensus" thinking become so prevalent in our society? It's only recently infected the scientific community by comparison to public policy, economics, and politics. Think how long the progressive policies of FDR have been mistakenly credited with helping Americans through the Great Depression when the opposite is true. Progressive policies contributed to and prolonged the Great Depression. But that consensus has been held by people going back to my Greatest Generation parents and is still widely believed today. Same with LBJ's Great Society legislation, which decimated the black family and continues to damage black culture and the rural poor in America to this day. 

"Capitalism has failed" says AOC and her crony capitalist allies at Amazon, Google, and Twitter. Really? Failed who? But, that's the growing consensus, leading to America-privileged, young, white fascists in the streets threatening to burn it all down. Half the country has Marxist sympathies, if not professing outright allegiance to the most murderous ideology of the 20th century, evidence be damned -- or, at least, ignored or memory-holed. 

But, I haven't answered the question "why?" It's apparent to me the "consensus" is just one more bullying cudgel in the Left's arsenal. It's intended to shut up dissenters and stifle discussion. Because the Left isn't interested in persuasion -- it's only aim is power, which it currently has in abundance, God help us. It's what they mean when they say "our democracy" (is under threat from Trump and his supporters in dissent). It's what Hillary meant by her campaign motto, "stronger together" (subtext: join or die). It's why Michael Anton (and the rest of us election skeptics) is being persecuted for not agreeing to the 2020 election being "free and fair," despite acquiescing to the Biden presidency. Shut up. Shut up! Shut up!! 

This will not end well for any of us, even those who currently support the Left's effort to declare independent thinkers "domestic terrorists." The Left is insatiable in its quest for power, and ambiguity in defining its opponents will eventually lead to former allies becoming enemies of the state. It's impossible to keep up with the demands to conform when the definitions are constantly changing. They'll all become summer soldiers and sunshine patriots to the would-be tyrants of the Left sooner or later. 

The rest of us shouldn't be surprised by any of this, though. We know where we stand right now in relation to the lefty Elect, and our position is precarious, my friends. We're very near the precipice.

------------------------------------------------------------------

For an extra dose of doom and gloom, here's the Weekend Long Read at American Greatness:

https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/27/the-narrative-the-coup-and-the-bourgeoisie/

BMGAA