Taking a Stance Against Woke vs Anti-Woke Accelerationism | Post Woke

The fundamentals of the Western Enlightenment is at stake here.

Welcome to TaraElla's Post Woke series, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

Today, I want to talk about what I think is the biggest threat to Western society right now: woke vs anti-woke accelerationism. Let's start by talking about the third National Conservatism Conference ("NatCon III"), which has been in the news recently. The NatCon conference is home to a particular strand of conservatism, that is most known for embracing the power of governments to fight the culture wars. This strand of conservatism is clearly different from the old-school conservatism of people like Reagan and Thatcher, and is probably better thought of as the radical wing of the anti-woke movement.

Let's look at what the NatCon people believe. "The institutional left does not intend to leave anything of the old republic behind for us to salvage. Constitutionalism, scientific inquiry, individual liberty, civil society, voluntarism, patriotism, parental authority, free expression, free enterprise, religious pluralism, cultural diversity - they are coming for everything. So national conservatism must come for them," declared Rachel Bovard, who was speaking at the conference. This quote is notable because it demonstrates what NatCon-style thinking is justified upon: a vague picture that 'the enemy' is out to destroy everything, and hence we are in a state of emergency, which would require extraordinary, illiberal measures to combat.

I actually agree that there are strands of left-wing thinking that is exactly like Bovard described. I have previously said that the logical conclusion of postmodern critical theory is that everything we know and cherish is a social construct that serves the interests of the oppressors by holding the oppressed down, and hence it all needs to be deconstructed. I also agree with the more general concern that the postmodern critical theory wing of the Left seems to have the misguided belief that an unlimited 'liberation' from the constrains of reality as we know it is possible or desirable. I believe this is partially rooted in the pseudo-Freudian philosophy of Herbert Marcuse, which has no basis in objective reality. As I often say, what we have now is the result of centuries or trial and error, and we will certainly not be able to get anything as good by knocking it all down and rebuilding everything from scratch.

However, the problem with the NatCon-style approach is that they conflate everything on 'the left', used in a broad sense, with the aforementioned extreme radical views. Hence, in their view, mainstream center-left politicians, political parties, media and organizations are all out to achieve that radical vision, and are hence all dangerous. This view flies in the face of objective reality, and also leaves no room for rational and respectful debate.  After all, if you see those who you disagree with as not merely sincerely misguided, but actively being a threat to civilization, there is much less reason to treat them with fairness and respect, and more reason to defeat them at all costs. Similar has been said about so-called 'woke' activists in the past, who saw their opponents as evil oppressors working to uphold an oppressive system. In both cases, their worldviews leave them with no reason to allow free speech and due process for their opponents.

Hence, the most extreme 'woke' activists often resort to using cultural and institutional power to suppress their opponents, and now NatCons want to use government power to suppress them. If the NatCons win power and start putting their ideas into practice, it will end up making the postmodern critical theory approach to politics look much more justified and necessary to progressives. This will mean that even the most moderate progressives will start embracing the most extreme forms of wokeism. This, in turn, will certainly cause the NatCons to double-down on their authoritarianism in response. The extremism on both sides will get worse and worse, and respect for things like free speech will certainly cease to exist. This vicious cycle will lead to the complete annihilation of the Western Enlightenment project, if it is not stopped.

As I have previously said multiple times, the anti-woke movement has evolved to become a mirror image of the 'woke' movement, and thus inherited most of its problems. Two of the biggest problems with the woke movement are its inability to be committed to objective reality, and its deliberate use of exaggerated language to rile up people's emotions. These features stem from the postmodern view that language and discourse are about power. It is a rejection of the classical liberal premise that discourse should be about getting us closer to the objective truth. In recent years, some anti-woke activists have, by mirroring the most extreme forms of woke culture, effectively adopted the postmodernist view that discourse is about power, and the NatCon style of politics is the ultimate culmination of this view. Hence, from the (classical) liberal viewpoint, woke and anti-woke, cancel culture and NatCon politics, might be different, even opposite, in content, but they are very similar in essence.

The problem with this false 'choice' between woke vs anti-woke, criticalism vs NatCon-ism, is that they ultimately represent only one choice on the most important issue: whether you believe that discourse is about getting to the objective truth, or about power struggle. Whether you believe that the outcome of the competition of ideas should be determined by merit, or by might means right. The false 'choice' between woke and anti-woke leads to the obscuring of this question, and the default acceptance of the power struggle, might means right worldview. Therefore, those of us who are still dedicated to the view that discourse should be about the objective truth need to clearly take a stand on this most fundamental of issues, and call out those who essentially want to put an end to the Western Enlightenment.

Culture War Right Betrays 2010s Free Speech Movement | TER Post Woke

We Really Need to Talk About the Culture War Right

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

Today, I want to talk about the rise of the new 'culture war Right', and why a post-woke politics must confront and reject it. Let's start here: ever since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, arguments over the legality of abortion have been especially heated across America, with opinions varying greatly by state. It is in this context that Republican senator Lindsey Graham has unveiled a bill that would enforce a ban on abortions past 15 weeks, that would apply to every state. This, of course, means that the people of the blue states will have a law most of them don't agree with imposed on them, without giving them a democratic say. The controversial move has made many moderate Republicans uncomfortable, but it also has plenty of supporters. Justifying his actions, Graham said that "there is a consensus view by the most prominent pro-life groups in America that this is where America should be at the federal level."

I don't actually want to go into the abortion debate. You see, the biggest problem with this isn't even about abortion. What is important here is that this is essentially a culture war move. As many have pointed out, the Graham bill is not likely to have the 60 votes it needs to pass anytime soon, so it's more about making a statement. With this statement, Graham has made it clear that he cares only about what activist groups on his side of the culture wars want, and he will use government authority to impose it on the rest of society, even on a controversial issue without a clear consensus. My problem with this authoritarian culture war approach to politics is, it's almost like saying, who needs to have a rational and respectful debate, when you can simply use the force of authority to impose your will on everyone else?

Looking back, most of the Right were keen participants in the mid-2010s free speech movement, but along the way some of them came to recognize that authoritarianism is actually more efficient, for the purposes of remaking society the way they want it to be. Hence, they have essentially embraced what we once opposed together. This change is also not limited to the issue of abortion, or to America. Culture war issues were a big part of the recent British Conservative Party leadership election, even though abortion itself was not discussed. The new Prime Minister Liz Truss is well known for her culture war politics, as were several of the other leadership candidates. As far as I'm aware, this is the first time in my lifetime that the British Conservatives have had a culture war focused leadership contest.

Culture war authoritarianism has actually been on the rise in the Right for a while now. Back in 2019, there was the famous Ahmari vs. French debate, where Sohrab Ahmari argued against old-school conservative David French, that the Right should fight the culture wars with the aim of defeating the enemy and re-ordering the public square to reflect their own values. He also argued that the culture war Right should not shy away from using government authority to impose their will. More recently, the culture war activist Christopher Rufo, famous for supposedly getting President Trump to take action against critical race theory (CRT), said that the culture war Right should ignore, marginalize, and repel people like David French. I mean, I never thought I would hear someone say that conservatives should repel David French! I am also particularly angry with Rufo, because his politicization of CRT, and his attempts to link opposing CRT to an authoritarian politics that threatens free speech, has made it difficult for people like me to convince our fellow liberals that CRT is indeed misguided and potentially dangerous. Every time I get called 'right-wing' for opposing CRT, I think of how Rufo and people like him have made our work so much harder. Rufo has made no secret of his intention to attack ideas he disagrees with on 'financial, legal, and bureaucratic grounds, in addition to the more straightforward style of intellectual debate' (quoting Rufo himself). His worldview stands against everything the mid-2010s free speech movement represented, and is just as bad as, if not worse than, the most extreme 'woke Left' activists in this regard.

My point is, if you don't like the culture wars, and want us to move towards a truly post-woke, post culture war politics, then you need to recognize that the new culture war politics on the Right is one of our biggest obstacles today. The culture wars poison every issue and every debate, by polarization, tribalism, groupthought, and riling up people's emotions. It makes cultivating the post-woke values of decency, fairness and genuineness impossible. It is impossible to be fair or genuine when one takes a side in a tribalist culture war, and it also makes it difficult to treat those who you disagree with decently. Moreover, the culture wars are a useful tool for those with authoritarian agendas. Most importantly, it makes independent thinking and being committed to the objective truth impossible. The culture wars are literally turning society into a postmodern nightmare.

We need to put an end to the culture wars, as soon as possible. To do this, we need to confront the people who want to use the culture wars for political gain, whether they are on the Left or the Right. We need to call out their destructive behavior whenever we see it. As Rufo himself said, their plan is to 'set the preconditions' by driving public opinion and priming the politicians. We need to be there to thwart their attempts every step of the way. Such a campaign would surely be a worthy successor to the 2010s free speech movement.

The Post-Woke Case for Bringing Science and Philosophy Back Together | TER Post Woke

The Divorce Between Science and Philosophy is Causing the West to Lose Its Mind

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

Today, I want to talk about an overlooked reason for the woke vs anti-woke mess we are in: the historical divorce between science and philosophy. Historically, philosophy preceded science, but included it. That is, before science existed as an independent area of study, it was included under philosophy, in the Western tradition. Much of what we now think of as the scientific method originated within philosophy. However, science, mathematics, and several other disciplines eventually separated out from philosophy, so that by the 20th century, philosophy basically no longer included many areas of study that have a strong empirical basis, or have a strong emphasis on objectivity or logic. This is what I would call 'post-science philosophy'.

Post-science philosophy's exclusion of science naturally meant that it developed further and further away from empiricism, objectivity, and logic. Throughout the 20th century, some parts of philosophy also came under the influence of politically motivated thinking, like critical theory, postmodernism, and Marcuse's pseudo-Freudian view of psychology. Eventually, those parts of philosophy became irreconcilable with objective reality, and incompatible with what the science actually says. Yet, the fact that philosophy preceded science seems to have given supporters of these philosophies justification to dismiss scientific facts that disagree with their worldview. This is why, when you try to get them to acknowledge certain scientific facts, they might tell you to read some Foucault! As many of you would know by now, the point of bringing up Foucault in this context is that knowledge is constructed by power, and is in the service of the oppressors against the oppressed. Hence those raising objective fact not only need to be dismissed, they need to be resisted as agents of the oppressive system. This is the point of view much of the philosophy underpinning so-called woke thinking is coming from, and this explains why it has such a resistance to open debate and acknowledging objective facts.

As I have said before, the anti-woke movement has evolved to become just the opposite of woke, and that is a very bad thing. Like some people might say, the whole point of that movement seems to be just to 'trigger the woke'. Logically, this would mean that the anti-woke is merely a mirror image of the woke, and therefore inherits many of its faults. Hence, it is unsurprising that the anti-woke is similarly anti-science. Especially in the past year, it has become more and more common for the anti-woke to be dismissive towards, or even assign ulterior motives to, those who hold scientific educational credentials. This is basically the same 'power bad, so experts bad' attitude that is found on the postmodern Left, even if it targets different kinds of experts. It is just as anti-objective and anti-intellectual. [ For an example of how unscientific the anti-woke Right has become, just look at Matt Walsh's recent documentary 'What Is A Woman'. There is no sincere, in-depth exploration of genetics, biology, neuroscience or evolutionary psychology. It is all about reinforcing a certain black-and-white view of gender that is not well justified objectively. ] Therefore, in a way, it has the same 'philosophy overrides science' attitude that is at the root of the postmodern Left's thinking. If we let this trend continue, the West will eventually become a place where science is shunned, and subjective, tribalist philosophy that provides different 'truths' to different people will become the new normal. The post-woke aim should be to stop us from going down that road.

To fix this mess, I think we need to actively work to heal the divorce between philosophy and science. As I have suggested before, the solution of encouraging multi-disciplinary intellectuals, who are trained in three or more very different disciplines at the postgraduate level, can be a first step. Such intellectuals will help bridge the gaps between the very specialized disciplines, and reduce the echo chamber effect that ultra-specialization has caused. In the longer term, I also think that a more empirical and quantitative perspective needs to be re-introduced into philosophy. The supporters of this perspective need to be unafraid to challenge the currently established views, and be committed to providing a truly objective alternative.

A Negative Conservatism Can't Conserve Anything | TE Cons Report

Why the Right have become the New Radicals

Welcome to the TaraElla Cons Report, where we talk about things from an intellectual conservative point of view, and how we can apply this philosophy in the 21st century West. I come from a moderate, centrist viewpoint, which means I appreciate conservative philosophy and try to balance it with the need for progress.

In recent years, something weird has been happening among those people who politically identify as conservatives. Traditionally, conservatives have been the optimistic ones. President Reagan was famous for his sunny optimism, while the far-left of that era hated his attitude as much as his policies. The book 'The Power of Positive Thinking' and the ideas it promoted have been popular with conservatives for three generations, while Herbert Marcuse called for the appreciation of 'negative thinking'. Even just a few years ago, some people noted that postmodern critical theory activists were deeply negative, and conservatives seemed to be more positive in comparison at least. However, for some reason, the tables have suddenly turned, with political conservatives being some of the angriest and most negative people right now.

Relentless negativity and conservative philosophy don't go together well at all. Having an appreciation of what we've got naturally goes hand in hand with a desire to preserve it. On the other hand, being negative is the natural precursor to being destructive. This is the reason why radicals like Marcuse rejected positive thinking: after all, if everything is so great, there really isn't a case for radical change. Hence, conservatives being negative are actually making the radicals' case for them!

The increasing negativity among conservative circles has led some on the Right to believe that some kind of reset, or 'counter-revolution', is needed, because the West is in such a bad state right now. Even those who might not go this far might nonetheless be on board with suspending some norms of civility, respect and free speech because we're supposedly in some kind of 'state of emergency'. However, the use of the perception of emergency to justify radical measures that destroy long-standing norms has long been a favorite tactic of radicals, and it generally leads to the destruction of important values and institutions that is not going to be reversible. Radicals, of course, don't have a problem with this, but if you're coming from a conservative philosophical point of view, I really can't see how this kind of outcome can be justified. Moreover, a so-called reset or 'counter-revolution' is no different from wiping the slate clean and starting all over again, another favorite fantasy of radicals. The traditional conservative opposition to this is justified on the grounds that, even if what we currently have is not perfect, it is still the product of many generations of evolution and lessons learnt. If we were to re-build everything from scratch, there is practically no chance that we will end up with something better than what we have now. I can't see why this important insight should not apply to where we are currently at.

The other question we need to ask right now is, are things that dire right now? As I previously mentioned, those who want radical change have a habit of creating the perception of emergency to justify their actions. While the social fabric of the West is not in good shape, and the health of families and communities certainly need to be improved, it is still clear that all is not lost. To give it all up would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater indeed!

The Case Against Cafeteria Libertarianism | Lib Lib Report

Reactionary populism is not compatible with a sincere commitment to classical liberal values.

Welcome to the Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report, where we talk about news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian point of view. We aim for a practical pro-liberty politics encouraging things like free speech and free thought in the here and now, while aiming to make the social contract of Western society more libertarian moving towards the future.

Today, I want to talk about a disturbing trend: what I think could be called 'cafeteria libertarianism'. This term obviously borrows from the common saying of 'cafeteria Christianity', and just like cafeteria Christians, cafeteria libertarians pick and choose what issues they want to be libertarian on, while ignoring other issues, or even having sympathies to outrightly authoritarian stances on other issues. The ultimate effect of this is that anyone could claim to be 'libertarian' because every kind of politics has its libertarian areas, and thus people who actually have highly authoritarian agendas can falsely claim to be friends of liberty.

My regular audience would know that I am a 'libertarian gradualist', as opposed to the immediatists that make up the bulk of the mainstream libertarian movement. Libertarian gradualists, while not supporting immediate libertarianism in every policy area, are not 'cafeteria libertarians', because we are sincere about advancing liberty overall. What makes a 'cafeteria libertarian' is their lack of a wish or vision to progress things overall to the side of liberty. Instead, they identify as 'libertarian' as a reaction to something they don't like, for example wokeness, cancel culture, or some kind of government regulation. In other areas, however, they are totally OK with authoritarian policies, to the extent of heaping praise on people who are taking action to move the Overton Window towards authoritarianism. You know, like cheering on Ron DeSantis using his state power to punish Disney for disagreeing with him. Or nodding in agreement to online influencers who promote a populist 'post-liberal conservatism'.

I guess the reason why we have 'cafeteria libertarianism' is because of the mistaken belief that the status quo, minus the woke, is already libertarian, or even worse, that Western society used to be truly free in some past golden age. This attitude is basically reactionary conservatism. The fact is that Western society, up until now, has always been somewhat authoritarian, especially towards those who don't agree with the majority. Anyone who has read any history, political science or law would recognize this. A sincere commitment to classical liberal values simply isn't compatible with a reactionary populism that defends traditionally popular freedoms but denies or even opposes less traditionally popular freedoms. There was a reason why John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill were all progressives in their time, who argued for things that weren't necessarily popular. This was because their vision was one that hadn't been realized yet. Even today, we still aren't there yet. I believe that recognizing we aren't there yet is the key to building a sincere progressive libertarianism, and rejecting reactionary 'cafeteria libertarianism'.

Recognizing that the classical liberal project is one that still has a long way to go would also allow us to keep being committed to our long term goals of more freedom, and remember to play the long game in response to current events. For example, free trade and globalization as it existed in the past four decades has had unfairly negative effects on many working people. Global corporates benefitted at the expense of working families, and this has created massive backlash. Refusing to deal with these problems would be irresponsible, and politically suicidal for any movement. However, that doesn't mean that we should suddenly be allies with people denouncing free trade as inherently evil, promoting conspiracy theories about globalization, and advocating for a return to the regressive 'clash of civilizations' attitude towards the world. Instead, we should continue to maintain that free trade and globalization are good because they make the world freer, but also acknowledge that how it is executed matters. Ultimately, it needs to be made to benefit working people rather than global corporates, which I believe is very doable. Similarly, while we can acknowledge that liberals need to do more to acknowledge the importance of families and the social fabric, we still need to firmly argue against the absurd claim that liberal thinking, going all the way back to Locke, is to be blamed for current social problems like low birth rates and high divorce rates. Anti-liberal forces both Left and Right want the liberal project to fail, and they are going to blame everything on there being too much freedom, as if there was such a thing. To fight back, we need to have a clear vision of what we actually believe in, and why it will lead to good outcomes.

Why Conservatism and Liberalism are Actually Cousins | TE Cons Report

The polarization is artificial, and we just have to see through it.

Welcome to the TaraElla Cons Report, where we talk about things from an intellectual conservative point of view, and how we can apply this philosophy in the 21st century West. I come from a moderate, centrist viewpoint, which means I appreciate conservative philosophy and try to balance it with the need for progress.

In our mainstream politics, the concepts of 'liberal' and 'conservative' are often pitted against each other. However, anyone familiar with political philosophy would know that this binary opposition is not necessarily true. Moreover, just a few years ago, some moderate conservatives tried getting under the 'classical liberal' umbrella, while some liberals campaigning for gay marriage emphasized the conservative case for their reform. This kind of crossover messaging seems to have disappeared in recent times, but there is an important truth in there: there is plenty of room for liberalism in conservatism, and vice versa.

Conservatism is concerned with preserving traditional values, institutions and elements of the social fabric. However, we live in a world where circumstances inevitably change, and adaptive reforms are required to keep these things alive. Moreover, conservatives generally want society to function according to good order, and free speech and rational debate are conducive to building and maintaining good order. A framework that emphasizes free speech and freedom of conscience would allow adaptive changes to be made, in a safe and balanced way. Meanwhile, such a framework would also be very effective in resisting grand utopian schemes to remake society, because it would be impossible to get a majority of people to agree to such schemes under conditions of freedom. I believe upholding the liberal framework is a much more effective way to preserve the good things we have for future generations, compared to a reactionary culture war style approach. Furthermore, classical liberal values have been part of the mainstream political consensus of the West for more than a century, and it has served us well. Therefore, a conservatism dedicated to conserving the fundamentals of our social contract would also conserve these values. The so-called 'post-liberal conservatives' are actually radicals!

The case for liberalism having a conservative side is perhaps less often heard of, but in our current context, it is perhaps no less important. Firstly, core liberal values like free speech, freedom of conscience, equality regardless of immutable characteristics and so on require a conscious attempt to conserve, or else they get eroded quickly. Right now, forces on both the Left and the Right want to compromise these values when it suits them, and we need to actively defend these values. Secondly, I recently came to the realization that liberal values only make sense if we assume there is at least something worth preserving in the status quo. The freedom afforded by liberalism enables debates and experiments about what to preserve, and what to change. Postmodern critical theory activism has shown us that, if every existing structure is oppressive and needs to be dismantled, liberal values would actually be a hindrance. This actually makes sense, because the liberal framework resists radical change. Logically then, to be liberal would imply believing that at least some things are worth conserving.

The reason why I want to emphasize the philosophical common ground between liberals and conservatives is because the current polarization is making people lose perspective of the bigger picture. The polarization is created by both traditional and social media, and actively encouraged by those with various agendas, as well as those who stand to gain in one way or another. But if you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, it suddenly looks more artificial, and even sort of ridiculous. I think this realization can be useful for disrupting the echo chambers on both sides.