"AI is creating a crisis of authenticity."

"Like it or not, generative AI is becoming increasingly embedded in the process of seeking information, sharing ideas, and producing images. ...

"But I’m not sold on the narrative that generative AI marks the democratisation of communication, a new creative renaissance, or even a particularly good thing for productivity properly defined. As Neil Postman put it almost thirty years ago: “The question, ‘What will a new technology do?’ is no more important than the question, ‘What will a new technology undo?’” And given that AI is frequently pitched as a replacement for any human speech mediated through a screen, it stands to undo quite a lot. What’s at stake is nothing less than authenticity itself. ... AI is creating a crisis of authenticity.

"Why should we care? Because authenticity is foundational to trust, the thread that ties human relationships together ...

"[R]egardless of [a message's] content, knowing that [the sender] did not engage in the deliberative process of writing makes the message ring hollow: No matter how well-intentioned the messenger, it is not ultimately their message. It’s the seed of a thought filtered through an algorithm developed by a tech company. And you wouldn’t be wrong to feel demoralised about that. ...

"Trust does not simply materialise out of thin air ... It requires trustworthiness. ... [W]e might say that in a high-trust space, a well-adjusted person would presume authenticity unless given good reason not to. Unfortunately, knowing AI use is widespread, rarely disclosed, and often occurs without regard to context, it’s much harder to assume authenticity in online communication. ...

"[J]ust because authenticity is difficult to quantify, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t value it at all."

~ Talia Barnes from her article 'You Can’t Trust Anything Anyone Writes'

Infinite Voices and Narrow Minds

"[There is now a] strange coexistence between an unprecedented variety of opinions that are strongly represented in the public square and the rigid worldview that constrains the beliefs of the most influential people in our society ....

"Never before have so many opinions been at our fingertips—and never before have so many professionals felt unable to voice theirs. What explains this paradox [of infinite voices and narrow minds], why does it matter, and what can we do about it?

"It is impossible to understand the recent politics of the Western world without considering a giant sociological transformation ...: The bourgeoisie has switched sides. ...

"Karl Marx called on the workers, not on the lawyers or freelance illustrators, of the world to unite. The origins of Germany’s Social Democratic Party, of Britain’s Labour Party, and even of the modern-day Democratic Party in the United States lie with factory workers and trade unionists. ... But of late, these realities have started to shift ...

"Plumbers are right wing but lawyers are left wing. Cab drivers are right wing but university professors are left wing. Police officers are right wing but civil servants are left wing. And though many professions claim to be apolitical, the plumbers and cab drivers and police officers increasingly suspect that the lawyers and professors and civil servants are letting their political values influence their work. The decline in respect for 'experts' is in part owed to the blatant lies spread on social media; but it also has its roots in the real ways in which the consensus within these professions has increasingly come to adhere to a narrowly progressive—and often lamentably erroneous—set of assumptions about the world. ...

"The resulting state of affairs leaves both sides equally unhappy. ... What one side perceives as flagrantly unjust domination by the well-credentialed, the other interprets as the perils of revanchist demagoguery."

~ Yascha Mounk from his post 'The Bourgeoisie Has Switched Sides: What happens when elites all believe the same thing'

"The issue is never the issue. The issue is always Revolution."

"In New Zealand, Māori are being offered [these] promises: co-governance, constitutional recognition, cultural primacy. These are framed as justice, but function as leverage. The goal is not reconciliation; it is ideological entrenchment.

    

    Co-governance is not about partnership; it’s about parallel sovereignty.
    Te Tiriti reinterpretation is not about history; it’s about power.
    Tikanga in law is not about tradition; it’s about jurisdictional capture.

"The race-Marxist machine does not care about whakapapa. It cares about mobilisation. Māori identity is being re-coded as political loyalty, and dissenters are cast as traitors to their own people. ...

"This is a classic Motte-and-Bailey tactic. ... Predictably, defenders of this [approach] will retreat to the motte: 'We just want equity.' But the bailey—the real ideological terrain—is far more radical: constitutional transformation, racial separatism, and symbolic supremacy. ...

" 'The issue is never the issue. The issue is always Revolution.' "

~ Colinxy from his post 'How Māori Are Being Played by the Marxist Machine'

Niall Ferguson: Osama bin Laden’s Posthumous Victory

"Comparing the world today with that of 24 years ago, I am tempted to say that bin Laden lost the war on terror but is winning the clash of civilisations. ...

"It is not just that the West has been successfully penetrated by an antagonistic civilisation that fundamentally rejects the fundamental division between religion and politics - church and state - that lies at the heart of both Christianity and Judaism. The West is also being geopolitically outmanoeuvred by 'the rest' in just the way Huntington foresaw*.

"Contrast the global order after 9/11 with the global order today. We have come a long way since NATO secretary-general George Robertson’s statement on September 11, 2001 - 'Our message to the people of the United States is . . . "We are with you." '

"In the past three years, Zbig Brzezinski’s worst-case scenario has come about. 'Potentially, the most dangerous scenario,' he wrote in 'The Grand Chessboard' (1997), would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by 'complementary grievances' Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that grand coalition has come into being, with North Korea as a fourth member. The 'Axis of Upheaval' (China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea) are now cooperating in military, economic and diplomatic ways. Moreover, the Trump administration’s combative treatment of American allies (the European Union, Japan, South Korea) and neutrals (Brazil, India, and Switzerland), not least with respect to trade policy, is alienating not only the traditionally nonaligned but also key partners.

'The upshot is that Israel is now virtually alone in fighting against the Islamists, so that even the United States wants plausible deniability when, as this week, the Israeli Air Force strikes the leadership of Hamas in the Qatari capital, Doha.

'The point is that the clash of civilisation continues. Now ask yourself: Who’s winning? 

...
"[C]omparing the world today with that of 24 years ago, I am tempted to say that bin Laden lost the war on terror but is winning the clash of civilisations. That’s not to say his particular brand of Salafist jihadism is winning; it can even be argued that it’s in decline. Bin Laden’s creed was always too uncompromising to form alliances of convenience. By contrast, the pro-Palestinian 'global intifada' is much more omnivorous, and can easily absorb the old left (Marxism and pan-Arabism) and the new (anti-globalism and wokeism). ...

"At the same time, Western civilisation today is so much more divided than it was 24 years ago. The public response to 10/7 illuminated the divisions. Whereas older voters generally remain more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian, younger cohorts have swung the other way. Perhaps that’s because to Gen-Z, 9/11 is a faint memory - as distant as the Cuban Missile Crisis and Kennedy’s assassination were to my generation. But it’s also because the Islamists have done such a good job of co-opting the campus radicals, somehow overriding the cognitive dissonance in slogans such as “Queers for Palestine,” while at the same time tapping the antisemitism that still lurks on the far right. ...

"Walking the streets of New York this week, I felt old. To my children, my students, and my employees, 9/11 is not a memory. It is not even an historical fact. It is something people argue about on social media. ...

"It has taken me all these years to understand that 9/11 really was a clash of civilisations. And it has taken me until this week finally to face the reality that ours is losing."

~ Niall Ferguson from his post commemorating September 11, 2001: 'Osama bin Laden’s Posthumous Victory'

* Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntiongton, whose seminal essay on “The Clash of Civilizations” was published in 1993, aligning with the Princeton scholar Bernard Lewis, who had long argued that Islam was chronically unable to modernise.

"Real justice means more than equal treatment," apparently

"Labour’s Māori Labour’s Māori caucus fully intends to regain the dominant influence it had during the Ardern-Hipkins government of 2017-23. ...

"[W]hether ... pushback is even possible for [Hipkins] remains moot given it has been observed that [he] can only hang onto the leadership as long as he has the support of his Māori MPs. ...

"Journalists don’t ask Hipkins very often about Labour’s dedication to co-governance and the Treaty as a 'partnership' but it is certain to become an area of contention in the 14 months until the election no matter how much Hipkins wants to avoid it. Particularly, of course, if Peeni Henare and his fellow Māori MPs publicly advocate for it. ...

"Henare’s pledges to electors in the Tāmaki Makaurau seat have been described by some commentators as 'radical.' While that is true, it is equally true they simply represent the same radical policies Ardern and her Māori caucus foisted on an unsuspecting public after Labour gained an outright majority in 2020." 

~ Graham Adams from his post 'By-election puts co-governance in spotlight'

Meanwhile ...

"Human rights law is being used in Aotearoa New Zealand to block Māori aspirations, according to new research by Auckland Law School Associate Professor Andrew Erueti ... Erueti contrasts two competing models for understanding Indigenous rights: a liberal model, based on equal treatment under the law, which tends to limit Māori authority; and a decolonisation model, which recognises that Māori held political authority long before the state existed.

"'And that self-determination means restoring that authority on Māori terms,' he adds. ... 'Real justice means more than equal treatment' ..."

~ from the Auckland University puff piece 'Human rights used to limit Māori governance - academic'

15 YEARS AGO: Here's how Key helped fuel the gravy-train

One advantage of having blogged so long is having written about so many things.

One disadvantage of having blogged so long is watching things you've warned about being ignored.  Here's from 2010, with Eric Crampton's warning in particular now looking especially prescient....

AS YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED, the Government you voted for has signed you up to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—something Helen Clark herself was opposed to, citing fears it would create “two classes of citizenship and … give indigenous people veto rights over laws made by Parliament.” 

But we already have two legal classes of  citizen, don’t we—something confirmed by Doug Graham when, as Minister in Charge of Treaty Capitulations, he told taxpayers, “The sooner we realise there are laws for one and laws for another, the better." 

So one law for all is officially dead. Pita Sharples grand-standing announcement merely throws another shovelful of dirt on that particular colour-blind aspiration. 

Instead, we now have another aspiration. One endorsed by your government without any conditions whatsoever, despite John Key’s insistence that the Declaration itself is “aspirational and non-binding.” 

Now naturally, Hone Harawira and co have a different view.  Hone has already been on radio insisting the Declaration will be used to support a gravy train of claims for other people’s property, and for truckloads of taxpayers’ money—and one suspects he speaks for many others when he says that, including those who will sit in judgement on such claims. 

And Mai Chen, eager to get in on the gravy, insists the declaration will “have an impact.”

   "‘Declarations … are international obligations and they do form part of the backdrop, the context within which courts do interpret, but it's not just courts its the Waitangi Tribunal and its also direct negotiations… [T]he entire country would appear to fall within the scope of the article, and [the text of the Declaration] generally takes no account of the fact that the land might be occupied or owned legitimately by others.’ 
    “Ms Chen said the Declaration would 'shape Maori expectations in negotiations.”

And the Declaration itself begins by affirming its “good faith in the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by States in accordance with the Charter.” 

So one suspects that this government signing up to the Declaration is going to involve more than just a little “aspirational” window-dressing. 

SO WHAT DOES IT CONTAIN,THIS DECLARATION? It should be no surprise to find that a UN Declaration with “rights” in the title contains a welter of manufactured “rights” that trample over genuine rights.  And if it were simply an enumeration of genuine rights—rights to life, liberty, free speech, the pursuit of property and happiness—it would hardly need the modifier “rights of indigenous people” added to it, as if by virtue of their indigeneity some individuals are more endowed with rights than others. 

As if to confirm that, The Declaration’s preamble talks about being “the basis for a strengthened partnership between indigenous peoples and States”—affirming as clearly as one could that “there are laws for one & laws for another.” 

It speaks of affirming to “peoples their right to self-determination”—ignoring that such a right pertains only to individuals, not to a collective. 

And the Declaration itself outlines specific “rights” which it says shall be upheld by “the States” which have affirmed it: 

• “the right [of indigenous people] to freely determine their political status”

Which “right” is a recipe for separatism.

• “the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs”

Which “right” is a guarantee that separatism will be upheld by “the State.”

• “the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture… States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for [this]”

Which “right” requires the State to subsidise for ever whatever parts of indigenous culture claimants will assert are being destroyed.

• “the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned”

The “right” to subsidised separatism, in whatever form of tribalism that will manifest itself.

• “the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.”

A “right” to the subsidised education of tribalism and mysticism, and to the re-naming of New Zealand.

• “States shall … take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children… to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.”

The “right” to kohanga reo for ever.

• “the right to establish their own media in their own languages”

The “right” to Maori TV for ever.

• “the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.”
  
• “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

The explicit creation of two classes of citizenship, and the “right” to veto that Helen Clark was so concerned about.

• “the right … to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security. 
  States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions…”

The “right” to special racist welfare. 

• “the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources”

The “right” to dream up a new basis of land claim for any part of New Zealand whatsoever.

• the right "to own use, develop or control lands and territories they have traditionally owned, occupied or used"

As New Zealand's former permanent representative to the UN, diplomat Rosemary Banks, says “the entire country was potentially caught within the scope of that article. ‘The article appears to require recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous ... Furthermore, this article implies indigenous peoples have rights that others do not.’"

• “the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.”

Providing the basis for a whole new cycle of claimants to ride a new gravy train. 

I COULD GO ON, BUT I suspect you already get the point. 

This is simply a whole litany of bogus “rights” with which the Hone Harawiras and Tame Itis of this country will have a field day.  For them and their lawyers, this is like Christmas in April. 

The affirmation of these bogus rights is John Key writing a blank cheque on taxpayers to buy the Maori Party for a generation. And just in case you think this isn’t the sound of someone putting their hand in your pocket, take a look at Article 39…

    “Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and technical assistance from States and through international cooperation, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this Declaration.”

The Declaration is nothing less than a manifesto for subsidised separatism. 

As Ayn Rand said of a similar list of entitlements “rights”: 

    “A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense?     “[These so-called rights] do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?     “If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.     “Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.”

Take note here that “The State” itself has no money of its own—every dollar must first be taken from others. The bogus “rights” affirmed here, to which New Zealand is now a signatory, require of taxpayers that they provide a cradle-to-grave ATM machine for whatever tribalists want, including the property of taxpayers, creating “two classes of citizenship and … giving indigenous people veto rights over laws made by Parliament,” just as Helen Clark feared it would. 

One law for all is officially dead. 

And parliament’s One-Law-For-All party?  The party propping up a government giving tribalists more even than Helen Clark was prepared to? What about them? Fear not, punters, for fearless leader Rodney Hide says the Declaration and the secrecy with which it was announced “is not a deal-breaker." 

Given what ACT supporters have already swallowed, one wonders if anything ever would be.

NB: Eric Crampton sees informative parallels “between New Zealand signing on to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and Canada's constitutional wranglings over Quebec as a'"Distinct Society'." 

    “In the Canadian case, folks inside Quebec had the impression that being granted ‘distinct society’ would give them everything they ever hoped for (at least during the Meech negotiations) while folks outside Quebec were told it ‘means dick.’ Here, Key says signing the Declaration is meaningless; Hone says it's powerful.     “If this starts working its way into judicial and regulatory decisions, Parliament would have to come in and explicitly state that it was the intention of Parliament that the Declaration is a legal nullity; Parliament would be unlikely to do that as it would be a pretty big slap to Maori…”

"It’s not really about te reo, tikanga, or even Māori. It’s about power."

 

"It’s not really about the words.

"That so many Kiwis care about [the wording on a passport] shows this is a symptom of a much bigger problem. ... a microcosm of the slow-burning cultural tension that has been building in New Zealand for years. ...

"What began as a well-meaning effort to honour Māori language and culture has, in the hands of our cultural elites, become a tool for ideological conformity and social stratification.

"It’s not really about te reo, tikanga, or even Māori. It’s about power. ... They get to be the priest class. They can sneer at the plumber in Palmerston North who doesn’t want his kids doing karakia at school, and tell themselves they’re not just smarter, but better. ... 

"Today, we’re swimming in a sea of te ao Māori frameworks, mandatory karakia in secular spaces, and public servants scrambling to prove their cultural credentials rather than deliver basic services. The line between recognising Māori as tangata whenua and enforcing a cultural ideology across every aspect of national life has become increasingly blurry and people have noticed.

"I am wound up that we’ve arrived at a place where people can’t distinguish between cultural recognition and cultural imposition. Where using Māori names is no longer about embracing heritage, it’s about enforcing allegiance."

~ Ani O'Brien from her post 'It's just a passport cover... except it's not'

"First cognition was destroyed, then morality, then politics."

"Republicans and Democrats really do not care about facts, logic, truth. These people truly believe that 'if they wish, it is so.' If you bring logic, and consistency to them, they react: 'you are too idealistic. facts, logic, principles and honesty do not matter in politics. What matters is people’s feelings.' They act same way as toddlers: as if their actions had no consequence to their future.

"We live in times ruled by feelings. Some heroic intellectuals are hopelessly trying to explain the obvious. But dishonesty is rampant. People don’t care.

"First cognition was destroyed, then morality, then politics. If a sufficient number of Americans don’t choose to think…the final stage is coming: the end of the freedom of those who choose to think, because their sacrifice will be demanded to keep the insane alive. By force."

~ Felixe Lapyda from his post 'America needs therapy'

"If you’re going to issue a cultural call to arms, it helps to have an idea what 'our own culture' actually means."

"If you’re going to issue a cultural call to arms, it helps to have an idea what 'our own culture' actually means. Reform and the Conservatives only know what they are rejecting: Islam and Europe. As for Labour, when Lisa Nandy became culture secretary a year ago, she pledged to transform Britain into a 'self-confident' country, one where everyone can 'see themselves in the stories we tell.' On the question of what that national story is, however, she was tellingly silent. ...

"Our culture has been impoverished. There are many culprits here. Woke traduces hundreds of years of history as tainted with criminality, leading to swathes of our national story, in all its gore and glory, being lost to sight. ...

"When I asked a young Briton to summarise the dominant culture among his generation, he replied, 'an international version of American culture that can be found anywhere.' The Right demands that immigrants 'integrate' — and rightly so — but if we are not careful there will be nothing left to integrate into. ...

"[T]he cultural emergency is real. 2012 is an age ago. The Queen is dead and Bond is on gardening leave. Society has been further weakened by rancorous lunges for power by aggrieved minorities, whether ethnic, sexual or religious, and the furious reaction of their opponents. ...

"Tell the story of this country, warts and all. But tell it. Tell it and tell it again until we see ourselves in it."

~ Christopher de Bellaigue from his post 'Britain can’t tell its national story' [Q: Can we?]

"A movement that changed a country." Peacefully.

It's been risible watching statists here struggling over recent months to get their heads around the Atlas Network think tank—and what exactly think tanks do.

What troubles them most perhaps is the word "think" in the description. Many have forgotten how to.

Nonetheless, to help them understand, the think tank Students for Liberty sets out to explain what they do. 

They begin by asking: "Why is the President of Argentina wearing THIS pin while announcing major policy changes?"

The story goes back to 1945, when a war hero wanted to save his country—and a Nobel Prize winner told him to forget about politics.

This isn't just about a pin. It's about how ideas travel from university classrooms to presidential palaces. And why every student needs to understand this journey—because you're living through it right now.

In 1945, World War II just ended. F.A. Hayek, teaching at the London School of Economics, meets Antony Fisher—a combat aviator and war hero. Fisher had read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and was terrified about Britain's socialist direction. "I want to enter politics," Fisher declared.

Hayek stopped him cold. "The political battle isn't won in the political arena," he explained. "It's fought—and ultimately won—by intellectuals." Politicians follow public opinion. But intellectuals? They shape it. 

 

Fisher listened. Instead of running for political office, he founded the UK's Institute of Economic Affairs. For decades, IEA scholars published papers, hosted debates, and educated a generation about free markets. The result? Britain elected Margaret Thatcher. 

 

Legend has it that in her first Cabinet meeting, Thatcher slammed down Hayek's book Constitution of Liberty—published by the IEA—and declared: "This is what we believe!" Ideas had become policy. Intellectuals had changed a nation. 

This wasn't an accident. Hayek had studied how ideas spread. It's like a pyramid:

        Scholars develop ideas ...

                ... Intellectuals* spread them 

                        ... Media amplifies them

                                ... Politicians adopt them

Every revolution starts at the top of that pyramid.

[* Note that the bar for "intellectual" here is clearly set very low.] 

Now look at American universities today (and this is fairly universal everywhere):  

X Professors teaching government as the solution to everything  

X Students defending socialism (70% of Gen Z consider voting socialist)  

X 53% of graduates feel unqualified for jobs in their field  

X Ideology of resentment toward achievement

 The pyramid is working—just not for liberty.

This is why Students For Liberty exists. 

Our Local Coordinators host events, educate peers, and develop as leaders worldwide. 

In 2024 alone: 3,881 events reaching 150,000+ people. 

One person who helped SFL in Argentina? An economist named Javier Milei.

Milei didn't just wear our pin—he partnered with us. 

He attended our events, explained our mission on TV, and mentored pro-liberty students across Argentina. 

Why? Because he understood: to change politics, you first have to change culture. 

 

Take Ethan Yang. Started with "no leadership experience, no professional skills. Just a small libertarian club that met in the basement of our dining hall." 

As a Students for Liberty coordinator, his Freedom of Information Act request helped halt the Biden administration's social-media censorship. The case reached the Supreme Court.

A federal judge called the Biden Administration's collusion with/threats to Big Tech "the most massive attack against free speech in US history." 

Stopped by one student. One request. Supreme Court case. 

That's the power of the pyramid when it works for liberty. 

 

Here's what every student needs to understand: 

You're not just getting a degree. 

You're being shaped by ideas that will define the next fifty years. 

The question isn't whether ideas will spread from campus—it's which ideas will spread.

Milton Friedman explains the point: "Our basic function is to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable." 

Before Milei became president, he was attending SFL events. 

That pin? It represents a movement that changed a country.

Tired of feeling outnumbered, silenced, or lost in campus groupthink? 

The College Survival Kit is your first step into this global movement. 

Learn how real change begins—with students who refuse to stay silent: DOWNLOAD YOURS HERE. 

TRENDWWATCH: The Collapse of the (Existing) Knowledge System.

"Would you believe me if I told you that the biggest news story of our century is happening right now—but is never mentioned in the press?

"That sounds crazy, doesn’t it?

"But that is often the case when a bold new worldview appears. ... We are living through a situation like that right now. ... a total shift—like the magnetic poles reversing. But it doesn’t even have a name—not yet.

"So let’s give it one.

"Let’s call it: The Collapse of the Knowledge System. ... The knowledge structure that has dominated everything for our entire lifetime—and for our parents and grandparents—is collapsing. And it’s taking place everywhere, all at once. ... Let me list ten signs of this collapse. 

(1) Scientific studies don't replicate. ... [and]  fake studies get cited more often than reliable ones. ...

(2) Public distrust of experts has reached an intensity never seen before. ...

(3) The career path for knowledge workers is breaking down—and many only have unpaid student loans to show for their years of training and preparation. ... Art history majors now have an easier time finding a job than computer engineers. ...

(4) Funding for science and tech research is disappearing in every sphere and sector. ... corporations that fund their own research programs are now investing in AI data centers, not scientists. ...

(5) Universities have lost their prestige, and have made enemies of their core constituencies. ...

(6) Plagiarism is getting exposed at all levels from students to corporations—and all the way to Harvard's president. But the authorities just take it for granted. ... It’s even embedded in the dominant technologies and institutions. ... 

(7) AI is imposed everywhere as the new expert system. But when it hallucinates and generates ridiculous responses, the authorities (again) take this for granted. ... And they never, ever apologise. ... 

(8) Science and technology are increasingly used to manipulate and exploit, not serve ... [and we] now see actual degradation in every sphere of technology. ... 

(9) Scandals are everywhere in the knowledge economy (Theranos, Sam Bankman-Fried, collapsing meme coins, COVID, etc). ... nobody is shocked anymore. They lost trust in knowledge tech industries long ago. ... 

(10) We hear constant bickering about “fake science”—from all political and ideological stances. Nobody talks about “true science” ...

"Let me point out that despite all the manipulations, hallucinations, abuses, and dysfunctional excesses of the digital life…

"…Despite all of these, symphonies sound as majestic as ever. Philosophy is more necessary than ever. Paintings are still glorious. Great architecture does not collapse. Nature warms the heart. As do poems and epics and myths.

"Jazz still swings. Heroes still prevail. The soul is stirred. And one lover still reaches for another.

"I’m not sure what exactly will replace the cold, dying knowledge system. But I suspect it will recognize the value of these things. And will prevail for that very reason. ...

"I’m not suggesting that you can replace tech with a poem. But tech now desparately needs what can only be provided by the humanities and human values.

"The new knowledge system will be built on these human values. Technology will be forced to serve it—or it will get locked into a losing battle with the new 'softer and gentler' knowledge system."

~ Ted Gioia from his post 'The Ten Warning Signs'

"The modern trend of cultural self-flagellation is not justice—it is neurosis."

"In no other Western democracy does the ordinary citizen so enthusiastically offer themselves as a sacrificial vessel for the errors of their rulers. In no other civil society are people so eager to drape themselves in guilt not their own, speak in a borrowed tongue they do not understand, and recite protocols they do not believe—just to win the favour of cultural gatekeepers they neither elected nor dared challenge. In modern New Zealand, this is not called confusion. It is called reconciliation. And it is strangling the 'republic of reason.' ...

"The average New Zealander believes they are good, fair-minded, and kind. And yet, they are told constantly that they live on stolen land, speak a colonial language, and benefit daily from the suppression of an indigenous people. This contradiction is unbearable. It creates a psychic tension that must be resolved—not with critical thinking, but with compensatory behaviour.

"So, they compensate. They sprinkle their speech with Māori words, not out of fluency but as offerings. They attend pōwhiri and pretend to understand its form. They sit on plastic chairs in air-conditioned government buildings and bow their heads solemnly as karakia are recited before reports on bus routes and waste disposal. The absurdity of the context is ignored, because the ritual is not about meaning—it is about atonement. Every mispronounced 'kia or'” is an apology. Every silent moment of reverence at a public hui is a plea: Please don’t judge me for history. I am one of the good ones. ...

"It is tempting to see this as mere virtue signalling. But that phrase, while accurate, is too casual. This is something more pervasive: a psychological restructuring of identity around perpetual apology. ... In New Zealand, citizens protect the ideological system that burdens them with cultural obligations not their own, because the alternative—standing up and saying 'this is not my guilt to carry'—would isolate them from polite society. They would be called racist. Or coloniser. Or worse: ignorant.

"And so, they consent. They normalise. They absorb the new rites with grim enthusiasm. ...

"The cost is not only borne by those who dissent. It is borne by the entire citizenry, who are denied the right to speak as equals—not because someone silences them, but because they silence themselves. ...

"This [cost] is not metaphorical. It is embedded in local government planning, where iwi consultation must be undertaken not by the Crown, but by the ratepayer. It is found in education, where Māori epistemology is presented not as one knowledge system among many, but as sacred truth. It is found in law and medicine, where cultural considerations override evidence, and where failure to understand tribal expectations becomes a professional liability. These are not expressions of biculturalism. They are acts of bureaucratic displacement—where the Crown shrugs off its historic responsibilities and says to the public: you carry this now. ...

"But the cruelty of this pact is that it can never be fulfilled. The shame does not diminish. The obligations do not reduce. The expectations only grow. Because the more one proves loyalty, the more one must keep proving it. The performative must become perpetual....

"What is needed now is not defiance, but clarity. Citizens must recover the ability to distinguish between respect and self-erasure. Between cultural inclusion and ideological submission. Between historical accountability and personal guilt. The Treaty may impose duties upon the Crown—but it does not impose them upon every individual who happens to be born here. One can honour history without inheriting its sins. One can affirm Māori dignity without abandoning civic equality. ...

"[T]he modern trend of cultural self-flagellation is not justice—it is neurosis. It is the psychological aftershock of a nation that has lost confidence in itself."

~ Zoran Rakovic from his post 'The Altar of Atonement: How New Zealanders Came to Worship Their Own Submission'

Who cares about 'Cultural Christians'? [VIDEO]

WATCH:

SO MANY ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS, no-theists, pantheists, and otherwise non-Christian coves like Richard Dawkins, Elon Musk, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are now calling themselves "cultural Christians" that it's become a phenomenon. Even Nick Cave is signing up. The argument, many say, for subscribing to the nonsense is that, they say, Christianity built western civilisation — so any decent supporter of civilisation should subscribe as well.

A book by Tom Holland is cited as one of the main influences on this movement. Holland is a prolific podcaster who has previously written — and written well — on the histories of Rome, Greece, Persia, and Islam —  Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind "isn’t a history of Christianity," he says, so much "a history of what's been revolutionary and transformative about Christianity: about how Christianity has transformed not just the West, but the entire world." So transformative, says the author, that we of the west find ourselves unable to even see the cultural transformation clearly.

In some in Christian circles this “Tom Holland train” is spoken of as a new route to Christianity.

But there are problems with the book. Most especially that he speaks of a philosophical transformation that preceded and informed the cultural change, yet his philosophical discussions are all but absent.

Not so in another book, by Charles Freeman.

Freeman's book The Reopening of the Western Mind is a magnificent 2023 sequel to his investigative opus The Closing of the Western Mind — an exploration of how Christianity's rise saw the fall of independent thought —the rise of faith bringing the death of reason — ushering in a millennia of darkness age only (en)lightened, eventually, by the revival of interest in Greek and Roman thought. (You can read my own summary of that great story here.)

You can see almost immediately how that might pit Freeman's books against the tale told by Tom Holland. Not least because Holland's overlooking of the importance of Greco-Roman thought (most especially that of Aristotle) undermines the very basis of his story.

An absorbing discussion with scholars from the Ayn Rand Institute (part of a "Bookshelf" series that I hope takes off) examines these two contrasting perspectives (above), evaluating their arguments and assessing their historical and philosophical accuracy. The discussion covered: 

• The central arguments of the books; 
• Why the Church feared Aristotelian philosophy; 
• How Freeman’s books provide a more thorough and philosophical analysis than Holland’s; 
• How Holland diminishes Greek influence on modernity; 
• How Holland appropriates secular ideas and thinkers into Christianity; 
• The role of Christianity in the abolition of slavery; 
• The relationship between Christianity and science; 
• Why Holland’s book gained popularity while Freeman’s did not.

Fascinating.

[NB: The books are published with different titles in the US and the UK, confusingly, so here in NZ you might see the same book with two different titles. I've linked below, if you click the cover pics, to what seem to be the best sources here.]

Young men are resenting being resented

 

"Young men seem to be motivated, not so much by a specific issue, but by their resentment of the current culture. If true, the upcoming elections will express the 'Breitbart Doctrine,' named after the late conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart. This doctrine states 'politics is downstream from culture.' To change the politics of a society, you must change its culture because politics originates from culture which, in turn, originates from the values of individuals who constitute society. Simply stated, if a person’s values and culture are transformed, his politics transforms accordingly.
    "The culture surrounding young men is dramatically different from that of their fathers, and the change has not been kind. The Brookings Institute notes, 'Young men increasingly feel as though they have been experiencing discrimination.' For decades now, prominent voices of political correctness, which is now called social justice, have blamed men as a gender class for a long slate of social wrongs. And, for young men, the past few decades constitute all of their lives. This means they have heard about their collective guilt since birth, and it would be natural for them to feel resentful for being castigated as a class for social wrongs. Such young men are reportedly turning to Donald Trump as a symbol of more traditional and proud manhood. ... [!]"

   "Women need healthy and well-adjusted men to be life partners, loving family members, friends, good neighbours, co-workers, and the peaceful strangers you pass on the street. The last thing women need is to live beside a generation of resentful men who act on their resentment, especially if the feeling is justified."

~ Wendy McElroy from her post 'Ignore The New Power Demographic at Your Own Risk: Young Male Voters'

UPDATED: "The richest 20 per cent of the world’s countries are now around 30 times richer than the poorest 20 per cent. Why? Differences in a society’s institutions."

"The richest 20 per cent of the world’s countries are now around 30 times richer than the poorest 20 per cent. Moreover, the income gap between the richest and poorest countries is persistent; although the poorest countries have become richer, they are not catching up with the most prosperous. ... Why? ... [D]ifferences in a society’s institutions. ...
    Europeans’ colonis[ed] large parts of the globe. One important explanation for the current differences in prosperity is the political and economic systems that the colonisers introduced, or chose to retain, from the sixteenth century onwards. The laureates demonstrated that this led to a reversal of fortune. The places that were, relatively speaking, the richest at their time of colonisation are now among the poorest. ...
    "In [these] colonies, the purpose was to exploit the indigenous population and extract natural resources to benefit the colonisers. In other cases [however], the colonisers built inclusive political and economic systems for the long-term benefit of European settlers. ... [These] settler colonies – needed to have inclusive economic institutions that incentivised settlers to work hard and invest in their new homeland. In turn, this led to demands for political rights that gave them a share of the profits. Of course, the early European colonies were not what we would now call democracies but, compared to the densely populated colonies to which few Europeans moved, the settler colonies provided considerably more extensive political rights. ...
    "[T]hese initial differences in colonial institutions are an important explanation for the vast differences in prosperity that we see today. ...
    "[This year's Nobel laureates in economics] have uncovered a clear chain of causality. [Mercantilist] institutions that were created to exploit the masses are bad for long-run growth, while ones that establish fundamental economic freedoms and the rule of law are good for it."

~ from the 'Popular Information' released by the Nobel Prize Committee, awarding this year's Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2024 to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson. [Hat tip Conversable Economist]

UPDATE: Not everyone's happy that the Prize has gone to what economist Deirdre McCloskey calls "a B+ statist": 

McCloskey of course has her own answer to what caused the prosperity that Acemoglu et al ascribe to good institutions: a cultural change before the Industrial Revolution she calls the "bourgeois revolution." Her ideas are debated here. For what it's worth, I'm in agreement with the great Joel Mokyr who says, "Ideas mattered, but so too did institutions."

Q: What is the nature of the artistic drive?

"[A] question I've always been really interested in is ... 'is there a way of understanding why humans continuously and constantly and without exception engage in cultural activity? We don't know of human groups that don't produce something that we would call art. It seems to be something that we are biologically inclined to do. If we are, then what is the nature of that drive? What is it doing for us? When people say, well surely this has been written about, what I say is, actually it hasn't, really. The number of books on this subject is vanishingly small. They occupy a shelf about 18" long. What has been done is a huge sort of taxonomy of cultural artifacts; people sort of listing things and saying that looks a bit like that, and these seem to belong together, and so on and so on. But this is a little bit like natural history before Darwin came along. ...

"[P]art of my life of course is being an artist, but the other part, and just as interesting to me, is wondering what it is I'm doing, or what everybody else is doing — asking what it's for.
    "If you asked 20 scientists what they thought they were doing, or what they thought the point of science was, I would think that most of them would come up with an answer something like, we want to understand the world, we want to see how the world works. If you asked 20 artists the same question — what are you doing it for, what does art do for us — I guarantee you'll get about 15 different answers, and the other five will tell you to mind your own business. There is no consensus whatsoever about what art is there for although some people will say, well, it's to make life more beautiful.
    "Here I am, an artist — who reads mostly science books — like most other artists. I know very few artists who read books about art. Why, I ask myself, is there not a conversation of that quality in the arts? Many artists normally are talking about science, they're not talking about art — there is not a developed language, for having a conversation about the arts....
    "[P]eople had a very poor understanding of the arts, and the reason they could happily waffle on about it was because their waffle was unchallengeable. There's such a poor conversation about it that you can say whatever crap you want to, and nobody's going to call you on it. The other thing is that everybody recognises the power of science. We recognise the power of cloning technologies, of nuclear weapons and so on. Everybody knows that science is powerful and could be dangerous, therefore there's a whole lot of criticism on that basis. What people don't realise is that culture is powerful and could be dangerous too. As long as culture is talked about as though it's a kind of nice little add-on to make things look a bit better in this sort of brutal life we all lead, as long as it's just seen as the icing on the cake, then people won't realise that it's the medium in which we're immersed, and which is forming us, which is making us what we are and what we think.”

~ Brian Eno from his recent "conversation" with Stewart Brand on 'A Big Theory Of Culture'