Article by Len D. Pozeram, a review of the book ‘Dark Academia: How Universities Die’, by Peter Fleming.
Interesting that the author concludes that universities are unreformable. That’s what Jordan Peterson has said for a while, which is why he founded his own university.
Helen Andrews in a video interview with the Daily Signal.
From the description:
For the past half decade or more, conservative intellectuals have tried to answer the question: Where did woke come from?
Some believe it is rebranded cultural Marxism. Others say it came from academia with the postmodern rejection of objective truth ultimately leading to the weaponization of culture. Maybe it came from the global corporations because woke is the ideology of the new managerial elite in late-stage neo-liberalism.
But perhaps “woke” and its offspring like “cancel culture” came from something called “The Great Feminization.”
Helen Andrews, author of “Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster,” recently wrote an essay called “The Great Feminization,” a term borrowed from the pseudonymous online writer J Stone, that explains how “woke” is “an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.” She joins “The Signal Sitdown” this week to discuss.
“We had a big fight called feminism in the 1970s over whether or not we thought women could be lawyers. And we decided that they could, and that’s great,” Andrews explained. “But it took a long time to go from token representation of the kind that was achieved in the heyday of second wave feminism to what we have now.”
See also this videoed talk: Overcoming the Feminization of Culture.
In short: The two ways to overcome feminization is to remove the pro-women bias in recruitment and to remove the need for two-income households.
See also this CompactMag article ‘The Great Feminization‘.
See this response by ‘The LOOPcast’. The woman there says Andrews doesn’t go deep enough. This speaker emphasises motherhood.
Article by Mark Keenan.
Excerpts:
Debt-based money ensures that this pattern is permanent. Because all money is issued as interest-bearing credit, new debt must constantly be created to service the old. If credit creation slows, defaults rise and the political class panics. Hence the endless call for “growth,” however hollow, and the refusal to confront the costs it imposes on both nature and society. A system that must expand or die will behave like a shark—efficient, unreflective, and indifferent to collateral damage.
[. . .]
The late psychologist Hervey Cleckley defined the psychopath as a person who “knows the words but not the music.” Our financial order knows the language of prosperity but not its meaning. It can model markets to six decimal places yet cannot tell the truth about who benefits and who pays. The spreadsheets are perfect; the souls are missing.
As I examine in the book The Debt Machine, this isn’t about hating bankers or glorifying poverty—it’s about recognizing that the very architecture of money has been built to reward the traits of a machine: speed, aggression, and detachment. Unless we redesign that architecture to reward stewardship instead, we will keep mistaking the cunning of greed for intelligence or wisdom.
This is what it means to return from illusion to reality — to build an economy that serves life rather than consumes it.
Sound money, honest credit, and transparent risk are not nostalgic slogans; they are the minimum conditions for sanity in an economy. Until we recover them, we will remain ruled not by men of reason, but by a system that acts—coldly, efficiently, and predictably—like a psychopath.
Touchstone talk by Jonathan Pageau. Video here (prompted at the right place).
From the video description:
I explore how our modern world—built on endless disruption and self-expression—has reached its breaking point. We’re witnessing the collapse of a culture that forgot its source, but that’s also at the beginnings of renewal. From art and architecture to worship and storytelling, I share how Christians can remember, celebrate, and create once again—recovering beauty, meaning, and participation in the divine order. This is a moment of opportunity: to rediscover Christ as the pattern of reality and rebuild culture on that foundation.
Article by Gary North from 2015.
15-minute video here.
Video of Interview Eric Metaxas leads with Paul Kingsworth, mainly about the tech companies’ leaders wanting to “transcend” humanity. And what to do against hat.
Interview (Youtube) with Eric Metaxas.
Contains a nugget about how Lewis got the idea to write the Screwtape Letters. (Hint: Something to do with Hitler.)
And then this exchange: “Who in the 20th century comes close to Tolkien and Lewis when writing about the nature of evil?” “Maybe Orwell.”
Article by Daniel Inman in “The Critic”.
Excerpts:
Here still lies the unique responsibility and opportunity of the Church of England. Informed by the post-liberalism that has shaped so much of public life in the past thirty years, the Church has too often been colluded with those who would reduce the nation to a set of “communities” — religious and secular — who share only fragments of a common moral language. It can hardly be surprising, then, that the evidence of young people returning to church suggests they come not for the softened rhetoric of progressive piety, but to encounter a mysterium tremendum — something deeper and more enduring than a wellness talk or the bureaucratic activism of the lanyard class. They are drawn when the Church dares to draw upon its liturgical, symbolic and aesthetic depths, animated by the countenance of God, pointing each of us beyond politics and markets to that “Fatherhood” which can bind us together and which alone can sustain civilisation.
[. . .]
Here are salient lessons for both Church, Crown and Parliament. If a new archbishop of Canterbury continues the Church of England’s enthusiasm for self-flagellation and ignorance of its own traditions of political theology, it may miss its final opportunity to hold not only itself together, but also the nation. And while our present Sovereign understands the power of symbol and religion to bind the nation together, will this be true of the next generation? Or will the forces of the day conspire to further disenchant the nation until what remains of us is a common enthusiasm for mental-health programmes and the national football team?
Interesting (9 minute) video. The speaker however misses two points:
Here’s the description under the video:
Contrary to popular belief, the European colonization of the Americas was made possible not by the Europeans having superior technology, but by the inadvertent introduction of pathogens from the Eastern Hemisphere that had not previously been present in the Americas.
This accounts for the fact that when the Europeans were colonizing the Americas in the 1500s and 1600s, they were not also colonizing Africa and Asia (with a few exceptions). It was not possible for the Europeans to colonize most parts of Africa and Asia at the time, because the people there already had the same technologies and the same diseases that the Europeans had.
Of course, Europeans did end up colonizing Africa and Asia, but not until the 1800s. This was suddenly possible then, when it hadn’t been earlier, because the Industrial Revolution happened to begin in Europe then. Within just a few generations, industrial technology also spread to the rest of the world, but by then the Europeans and people of European descent had managed to establish their preeminence in world affairs.
The economic, military, and technological superiority of the countries of Europe and of people of European descent traces back only as far as the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s. Before that, Europeans had no advantages over the countries of Asia and Africa.