Is it Time for Intellectuals to Talk about God?

Another progressive leftist finds religion in the face of the pandemic measures

Naomi Wolf is a well-known left-wing, secular, progressive, human-rights (in particular women’s rights) activist. Or rather, was.

She wrote recently, in an article whose title I have copied for this entry:

I confessed at that gathering in the woods with the health freedom community, that I had started to pray again. This was after many years of thinking that my spiritual life was not that important, and certainly very personal, almost embarrassingly so, and thus it was not something I should mention in public.

I told the group that I was now willing to speak about God publicly, because I had looked at what had descended on us from every angle, using my normal critical training and faculties; and that it was so elaborate in its construction, so comprehensive, and so cruel, with an almost superhuman, flamboyant, baroque imagination made out of the essence of cruelty itself — that I could not see that it had been accomplished by mere humans working on the bumbling human level in the dumb political space.

I felt around us, in the majestic nature of the awfulness of the evil around us, the presence of “principalities and powers” — almost awe-inspiring levels of darkness and of inhuman, anti-human forces. In the policies unfolding around us I saw again and again anti-human outcomes being generated: policies aimed at killing children’s joy; at literally suffocating children, restricting their breath, speech and laughter; at killing school; at killing ties between families and extended families; at killing churches and synagogues and mosques; and, from the highest levels, from the President’s own bully pulpit, demands for people to collude in excluding, rejecting, dismissing, shunning, hating their neighbors and loved ones and friends. [My emphases.]

Wolf, who is of Jewish heritage, concludes:

So I told the group in the woods, that the very impressiveness of evil all around us in all of its new majesty, was leading me to believe in a newly literal and immediate way in the presence, the possibility, the necessity of a countervailing force — that of a God. It was almost a negative proof: an evil this large must mean that there is a God at which it is aiming its malevolence. [My emphasis.]

This is amazing. After journalist James Delingpole, who was a more or less secular conservative, and Professor Mark Crispin Miller, a (former) leftist secular academic, we have a third more or less well-known public personas who profess that the pandemic, or rather the public reaction to the pandemic, have led, or should one say, driven them to God. Of those three, Naomi Wolf is by far the most famous.

Admittedly, she’s not Christian. She writes in the same article: “As I often say, I’ll take any faith tradition. I’ll talk to God in any language — I don’t think forms really matter. I think intention is everything.”

Still, I see a trend, a pattern. Let’s see who’s next.

Greta Thunberg vs Boyan Slat (who?)

Wrong thesis of media star vs right thesis of a nobody

See here.

Greta is now 19, Boyan is 27.

At age 16, Boyan invented a “passive plastic catchment system, using circulating ocean currents to net plastic waste”. On Boyan’s Wikipedia page, it says: “As of mid 2020, Interceptors have been deployed in Indonesia and Malaysia, and are prepared to be deployed in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic.”

Planet Lockdown

"A documentary and interview series covering the information needed to understand where we are today."

To be found here on Brand NewTube (1 h 50 min).

From the description:

“For Planet Lockdown we spoke to some of the brightest minds in the world including epidemiologists, scientists, doctors, lawyers, protesters, a statesman and a prince. These brave souls had the courage to speak truth against all odds and inspire us to do the same. We must have the courage to overcome our fears. And once we do, it gets easier every time.”

Here’s their website.

‘Nudge’ has no place in our democracy

Rampant fear-mongering was intentional, admits one of the co-founders of the Behavioural Insights Team

Frank Furedi comments in spiked-online.com:

Behavioural science, aka ‘nudging’, has been used by the government during the pandemic to scare people into doing the ‘right’ thing. This insidious development has even been acknowledged by Simon Ruda, one of the co-founders of the Behavioural Insights Team, aka the Nudge Unit, which is part-owned by the UK government. He wrote that the ‘most egregious and far-reaching mistake made in responding to the pandemic has been the level of fear willingly conveyed [to] the public’.

He continues:

And here we come to the principal problem – namely, that nudging is fundamentally anti-democratic. Behavioural scientists start from the assumption that human beings cannot be trusted to make rational choices. People’s behaviour, they conclude, should be the subject of government management. They treat people’s emotional lives, lifestyles and relationships as legitimate objects of policymaking and professional intervention.

After Covid

We won’t get normality back without a fight

Over at Spiked-online, Brendan O’Neill observes and comments on the rather sudden change in tune in the official and mainstream commentariat regarding all things Covid. He writes:

“Suddenly, everyone’s talking about getting back to normal. After 22 months of restrictions, of going in and out of lockdown, of a suspension of civil liberties that was unprecedented in modern peacetime Britain, all the talk is of ‘moving on’. Let’s learn to live with Covid, politicians say.”

He rightly says that “moving on” won’t be easy.

“As sociologist and SAGE adviser Robert Dingwall said back in May 2020, officialdom ‘effectively terrorised’ the public into believing Covid would kill them if they broke the rules. We created a ‘climate of fear’, he said. The consequence of terrorising the public, rather than galvanising us to pull together to combat the spread of Covid and assist the vulnerable, became clear very early on. Snitching abounded. Neighbours told on neighbours. Venturing outside came to be viewed as dangerous anti-social behaviour. Police forces went wild, clearing people out of parks for no good reason and even sending drones to spy on dog-walkers in scenic country spots. The culture of atomisation that predated Covid was intensified by the terror officialdom deployed in response to Covid. Repairing solidarity will be a tough task.”

“And what about the culture of freedom? Forget, for a moment, the way our legally guaranteed liberties were put on ice during this crisis. That was bad, no question. But a more injurious if sometimes intangible process was taking place alongside this temporary unwinding of our rights. The culture of freedom was undermined. The individual self-confidence and social trust that freedom depends upon, which freedom cannot exist without, was pummelled, day in, day out. We were educated to distrust others, to distrust ourselves.”

His conclusion:

“We hear a lot about ‘Covid denialism’, about those who deny the scientific reality of Covid-19’s impact on human health. Those people are certainly worth challenging. But I would venture that there is a worse problem – cultural denialism; the blinkered belief that lockdown was a simple and straightforward measure to deal with a health crisis rather than something that was also highly influenced by the cultures of fear, distrust and censorship that sadly define this young century. To my mind, this cultural denialism is worse than scientific denialism because it keeps at bay the political reckoning we will need to have if we are ever to restore the human connections and individual self-belief that are necessary to a good society. For nearly two years we’ve been told that protecting health is the highest aim of human society. We now need to make a very different case – that it is freedom that makes life worth living, and that everything should be bent towards making freedom a reality for all people. Let’s fight for that normality.”

The Only Safe Sex

"The combination of Eros and Agape that is the recipe for true love"

On the LewRockwell.com site, Ira Katz posted an essay yesterday that he says he wrote more than 20 years ago and never published before. “It describes another controversy about safety sex, like we are experiencing today with Covid . . . I have edited it somewhat, but there are no hyperlinks and some of the information could be dated.”

Two quotes:

“If one has sex through this true love it is really safe.  The other would never put you at risk by being diseased.  In fact you would know him so well to be sure he was disease free.  You would not feel the slightest risk of abandonment because you were really sharing one life, not passing fluids between two passing lives.  This love is usually anointed by society through the institution of marriage.”

“Of course we cannot expect to find the perfect love very often.  Yet I think it is better to try and achieve some aspect of Eros and Agape than to simply submit to our animal instincts.  Contraceptives, in a profound way, have broken our society by allowing us to act on our instincts without feeling the immediate effects of our actions.  Furthermore, they have added to a culture which rates sex as the highest order of life, greatly demeaning life.  For these reasons I believe contraceptives can never provide safe sex.”

The full article is here.