The New York Times documents “the costs of war” with its award-winning team At War, using digitized collections of recorded violence - close-up stories of tragedy, personal recollections of pain, and hyper fixations on fear-mongering - as an empathetic political device. Although effective in rallying public support for humanitarian aid, ‘At War’ raises an important philosophical question about our direction:

War has been humanity’s oldest friend and youngest enemy. As we dig into the recesses of our collective mind, we have yet to unearth a record of time unmarred by conflict and strife.

Yet, however familiar we have become with "War" as a global phenomenon - as opposed to "war" in its local instances - we continue to be startled by its ever-changing persona. We have hung thousands of its portraits in our hallways attempting to define its identity so that - once we have learned of its character- we may search for its sibling, Peace. Although we remain far from painting War’s complete picture, we have found one feature of War across culture: death. Death has been represented by personified form, by dramatic reenactment, and by symbolic motif in historical galleries and exhibitions around the world. With so many cultures capsized by conflict-driven death, we would be ignorant to bypass death when addressing War. However, we should take care to avoid mistaking death for War in our efforts to find Peace.

The soft problem of War should be recreated into a hard problem since identifying the issue correctly is the first step towards a viable solution. What exactly is War? What is not War? Methodologies developed for policy-making during international warfare are helpful for this brief analysis of War. Contemporary theories on foreign policy emphasize that successful procedures rely on the accurate identification of the adversarial Other¹. Thus, our question of the Other sets up the framework wherein a counter-strategy can be appropriately formed.

In the history of traditional visual art, death is often conceptualized as the corporeal Other - the common enemy - clothed under the guise of War and Disease. Up until the 20th century, visualizations of death in War typically revolved around icons and depictions of violence steeped in psychological and historical connotations. Death in War as a physical symbol, as in the memento mori of The Apotheosis of War (Vasily Vereshchagin, 1871), began manifesting into stylistic and structural choices, as in the morphology of Guernica (Pablo Picasso, 1937). Its chrysalis into a metaphysical enemy is exemplified by the complete avoidance of recognizable organization and form, as hallmarked by the freedom of expression in Convergence (Jackson Pollock, 1952). As warfare shifted away from other nation-states to warfare against generalized concepts - e.g. the War on Communism, the War on Terrorism, and the War on Drugs - an overarching trend towards abstractionism developed as a response to the corporeal Other becoming ethereal.

For example, the War on Viruses occurred during the timespan of the three aforementioned works. Enemies are no longer men but organisms invisible to the naked eye - the H1N1 flu, the spread of HIV/AIDs, the Ebola outbreak, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Sword-and-shield battles with monarchs gave way to vaccine-and-mask battles with viral strains. Death now comes from our neighbors, our family, and our lovers. During havoc, the familiar is forced to recede once again as death remains both our old friend and ever-changing enemy. As previous comforts of touch and conversation become villainized, uncertainty becomes constant and death erupts from the rise of chaos. We rely on the structure of government, of information, and of research to be the equal and opposing force capable of halting the rising count of unmarked graveyards. But when our two crutches of federal policy and scientific progress begin crumbling under our own weight, we are left with no choice but to embrace the uneven terrain with our bare hands and knees.

Creative production spurred on by perpetual destruction has transformed our perception of death from an explicit interpretation - symbols and actions - to an implicit interpretation - abstracted tension suspended between order and chaos. Over the history of visual art, abstractionism had transformed from a mere feature of communication into a language in and of itself. Incorporation of the abstract transformed from iconographic tool to philosophical process. The divorce between the concrete and the abstract evolved from our experience of death becoming ethereal.  When the Other is corporeal and approachable, then we intrinsically categorize and classify death with a reasonable sense of cognitive associative order (definitive representation, e.g. a black raven). When the Other is ethereal and aloof, then we abandon our naturally structured habits and gravitate towards the unresolvable push-and-pull between chaos and order in the attempt to understand the unrecognizable (subjective portrayal, e.g. the randomized splatter of paint). Death’s crystallization as a metaphysical and conceptual enemy (abstracted tension) has labeled the introduction of chaos as the underlying source of death.

Assuming that Dualism remains a common-place understanding of reality in our societies, humanity’s universally-experienced Chaos should then be resolved by a universally-applied solution of Order. As Yin is balanced by Yang and as Good is at odds with Evil, Chaos is offset by Order … or is it? In our current era, the reception of chaos is accepted as a highly personal experience due to contemporary ideologies enforcing relativism over absolutism. Chaos is no longer a universal experience, rather, it is localized and unique to each individual. For example, a room with clumps of clothing and paper strewn about may appear messy to a visitor but is organized to its resident. This relativistic approach to chaos fundamentally nullifies the universality of dualistic approaches. The disagreements stimulated by nuance substantially contribute towards the lack of a universal consensus, making it near impossible to locate a universal solution. If the solution to War is relativistic, then why are we looking for an absolutist solution? Why is there a search for an absolutist solution or truth if we do not believe in its existence? Effective progress demands clarity in both approach and outcome.

Tracing back on our trail, we find that a categorical error has been made from a cognitive bias commonly activated during times of crisis. The availability heuristic explains our tendency to recollect memories quickly based on how recently and how emotionally charged they were when they were made² . As we often do with the people we meet, we have made snap judgments about War based on its most frontal impact. When we encountered War time and time again, we persistently felt the loss, pain, and grief that accompany death. Death, the signet of War, has sealed the fates of individuals with the weight of tragedy and agony; its impressions run deep and clear in flowing red. While we acutely focus on War’s initial impressions, we have subconsciously substituted one of its parts - death - for its whole. Rather than remaining a component of a greater schema, death has become “Death”; we have overblown the classification of the nose to the magnitude of a whole face. We have erroneously assigned our trials with death to our efforts with War. Although death, the corporeal and ethereal Other, is commonly shared between War and Disease, humanity’s ongoing conflicts are not with Death. The deep emotional and spiritual earthquakes caused by death is significant and should be duly addressed. However, we should not disproportionately hyperfocusing on death’s role in the pursuit of Peace. Categorical solutions require categorical consistency. Leo Tolstoy wrote War and Peace, not Death and Peace.

References:

1. Naṣr, Vali (2013). The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
2. Tversky, Amos; Kahneman, Daniel (1973). "Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability". Cognitive Psychology. 5 (2): 207–232. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9.

https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/atwar

As the 2020 Election nears, the Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden has adopted many of Sen. Bernie Sander’s policy platforms. In so doing, the Democrats hope to consolidate a base and unify the Democratic Party. However, it is likely that Biden’s campaign has in fact alienated a large base of moderate Democrats who are increasingly looking at their party in bewilderment. With the announcement of Kamala Harris as his running mate, the platform has now officially adopted more radical politics. This is a somewhat interesting phenomenon as it in some ways mirrors the Republican Party circa 2016, when then upstart candidate Donald Trump ignited a Republican Party schism.

Not only did Trump enter in as a more populist candidate, he was far more liberal in policy and ideas than most of his opponents. As a polarizing figure, his election signified an American populace fed up with an elitist mentality from Capitol Hill, not just in the Democratic Party, but within the Republican Party’s old guard. The fall out resulted in a new and revived Republican Party, more keen to accept liberal ideas, and a growing young conservative movement focused on founding principles of American democracy.

The Democratic Party, since the 2016 election has spent an inordinate amount of time focusing on Donald Trump’s character flaws. He indeed has many. This focus however has highlighted the same glaring problem in the Democratic Party elite as that of the Republican Party Old Guard back in 2016. Namely, wealthy suburbanites who have a notion that they know best and that the majority of other Americans are uneducated and uninformed. This grave error is evident in the political affiliations of most Big Tech companies and in Silicon Valley. It is also evident in Academia and many legal professions. The irony is that the Progressive Democratic movement is pushing a narrative which purports that power, institutionalized racism, and oppression are the reason many minorities in America are suffering. All the while, the majority of these very institutions are controlled by Democratic individuals.

Bernie Sander’s campaign represented these ideas in very clear fashion. Aside from being a thinly veiled Communist platform, or “Democratic Socialist” platform, it decries the elites and calls for a redistribution of wealth and services for the American people. Many Democrats voted in the primary for Joe Biden because he represented a “bulwark” against the more radical elements of the Democratic Party. The far left and progressive ideals however, are now being absorbed by the Biden campaign in an attempt to curry favor with the Bernie supporters. Of course this now leaves a large swathe of classical liberals with a conundrum. Can they support a platform which calls for increasing governmental involvement in people’s lives? Is the federal government supposed to have this much power over state and local governments? What about freedom of speech? Is censorship of “hateful speech” a deliberate undermining of first amendment rights?

The answer lies in the large exodus of liberals who are now increasingly being vocal about the problems with the Postmodernists within the Democratic party. The Walk Away Campaign has left the Democratic Party struggling with its identity and it looks like the party is increasingly being taken over by postmodernists. More and more liberals are leaving or are forcibly pushed out. The result has created an interesting point in history. With a Republican Party now embracing liberal ideas and in fact many times defending liberal ideals, classical liberals have increasingly joined American Independents in the “No Party Preference” category. It is quite possible that as conservatives welcome classical liberals into the Republican Party, we may be witnessing a major party realignment. The Democratic Party may in fact become the Party of Postmodern Socialism. The Republican Party may in fact become the Party of Classical Liberalism and Conservatives. An odd mix to be sure. But then again, it is 2020.

“Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” declared prize winning physicists Stephen Hawking. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics,” he added, “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

Hawking’s address on philosophy was undoubtedly a bold declaration of the inadequacy of philosophers in general. And Hawking’s statement has its merits; for millennia, philosophers had relied on metaphysical principles to arrive at conclusions. And admittedly, certain philosophers today are uninformed of the most up-to-date scientific research to support or refute their stance. But perhaps Hawking’s mindset is best explained by his contemporary Neil deGrasse Tyson, as he said, “All of a sudden [philosophy] devolves into a discussion of the definition of words… The scientist says, ‘Look, I got all this world of unknown out there. I’m moving on… You can’t even cross the street because you are distracted by what you are sure are deep questions you’ve asked yourself.’” Even Bill Nye the Science Guy has seemed to adopt a similar attitude, as he answered on BigThink, “Philosophy is important for a while, but… you might start to argue in circles.”

With the popularity of the three scientific giants, many young scientists had followed their attitude towards philosophy. Students studying in bachelor or even graduate science degrees might be required to take a philosophy course as a graduation requirement but dismiss the philosophical knowledge learned. Despite the rise in popularity of such an attitude, it should not distract us from critiquing a suicidal blow of “Philosophy is dead.” To borrow George Orwell’s language, Hawking and his contemporaries might have a disdain towards the study of philosophy, but the view that “Philosophy is dead” is itself a philosophical attitude. In declaring the death of philosophy, Hawking had refuted himself. Philosophy is alive and well, but, unfortunately, contemporary scientists are too distracted by their quest to understand the material world and have forgotten metaphysical principles that gave birth to their fields.

But this attitude towards philosophy among contemporary scientists should also bring us back about 200 years to the German philosopher Fredrick Nietzsche. He made a similar statement in his books The Gay Science and Thus Spoke Zarathrustra, “God is dead, and we have killed Him.” And this is perhaps Nitzche’s most infamously misunderstood statement, as many have viewed it to prescribe the necessary end of religiosity due to the enlightenment of human modernity. Even though Nietzsche was an atheist, he never used this statement to justify his beliefs in the lack of God. In contrast, Nietzsche’s “Death of God” was an observation of the effects of modernity - people living godless lives in the comfort of new scientific discoveries and inventions. Some commentators would even say Nietzsche’s infamous statement brought a hint of criticism towards people’s godless lifestyle since modernity had brought obscurity to objective morality and objective beliefs.

Despite the similarities in sentence structure, it should be evident by now that Hawking’s and Nietzche’s sentiments are fundamentally different. Hawking was making a factual declaration while Nietzche was making a cultural observation. Hawking and his contemporaries had dismissed the maternal figure of science and had strayed into ignorance, thinking that science, the child of philosophy, can replace the role of his mother. And contemporary scientists have ironically confirmed Nietzche’s observation, even though we are 200 years apart; modern scientists have taken the scientific method for granted but never made an effort to understand its epistemology.

Hawking’s philosophical attitude should prompt us to observe that philosophy is dead, and we have killed her, not because she is irrelevant, but because we are ignorant to acknowledge her forbearance to science. Scientists might have become the “the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge,” but they cannot do it without philosophy. Some philosophers might be asking deep questions and not crossing the road, but these are questions that assess how dangerous the road is before crossing. Philosophers might be asking curricular questions on unprovable assumptions, but so are the axioms of the scientific method. And to better mature this great field of study, scientists should be more aware of the metaphysics that gave birth to its methods and apply it in their observations.

The American Academy is one that is relatively new but has many of its inherited characteristics from the English universities such as Oxford and Cambridge. Fundamentally, these institutions are supposed to safeguard, promote, and further knowledge and education. They are the hallmark of human progress and knowledge. However, a brief look into the interior workings of modern day academia reveals a system that is clogged up with bureaucracy, financial strain, and administrative bloat. Though this is not the sole measure of health for a university, many universities in the United States are suffering from mismanagement at the highest levels. Some of these things may be beyond the control of the faculty, yet it is clear that academics have willfully turned a blind eye in some instances to protect their own positions.

Academia is quickly facing an economics problem. Too much demand for too little a supply of academic positions. Here are some glaring facts:

• Depending on university and field, an average PhD student can expect a salary of $27,170 per year.
• The average salary of a university dean is $93,529 per year with the high end topping off around $191,000 per year.
• The average salary of a university provost is $149,318 per year with the high end around $216,000 per year.
• The average salary of a university president is $277,234 per year with the high end around $490,000 per year.
• The number of PhD students are steadily rising with about 55,000 doctorate degrees awarded in 2016 .

As universities continue to increase tuition year over year, the pay of most graduate students has remained stagnant. Much of the money is used in large building projects and much is used to pay deans and associate deans. Take for instance UCLA which has around 20 deans and a large number of associate deans. The number varies by department and school, but the case still remains that those types of positions do not expand much and the ratio of PhD student to dean is rapidly expanding.

Universities have only exacerbated the problem with the fact that the main positions that have been added are usually some sort of dean of diversity and/or inclusion to the departments. These positions are largely symbolic and when they do affect policy, generally focus on increasing overall undergraduate and graduate student admissions. The goal of these initiatives largely focus on admitting underprivileged students who do not perform as well academically in an attempt to achieve a more diverse university setting.

The results of adding these diversity deans and their policies are two-fold. First, the university becomes even more top heaving with having to sustain sometimes an additional 5-10 associate deans. Though sometimes these deans are already faculty members, any dean position means a salary increase as well. Secondly, a serious dilution in the degrees at both the undergraduate Bachelor level and graduate Masters and Doctorate level. These degrees become less meaningful with the addition of more students, the competition becomes stiffer for already scarce academic positions, and the pay remains stagnant as the universities have to divide pay across even more individuals.

Instead of focusing on the quality of education being provided, most universities are content with charging large prices for a diluted education. Forcing diversity initiatives on their campus has also created a climate that is largely intolerant of views which go contrary to the diversity initiatives. These initiatives have additionally created a dilution of the value of the degree when awarded due to the fact that more people, who are objectively less qualified, now have these degrees as well.

This doesn’t even take into account all the other diversity and cultural and student life offices which have faculty who are not teaching faculty. Though some of these positions may be necessary, many of these offices have been created specifically to cater to the diversity initiatives being pushed across America. It has become a racket of sorts with the universities awarding degrees for fields of study that are essentially worthless and then hiring these “PhDs” to become diversity faculty while directing funding away from the normal teaching and research faculty positions.

Now it is important to note that I myself am a PhD candidate at a large research university. I think diversity is important but specifically diversity of thought. Diversity on the basis of race is borderline racist and I think that many universities are doing more harm than good when focusing on race-based diversity. My own university spends an inordinate amount of time trying to balance inter-sectional diversity agendas which detract from meaningful scientific research.

It is unclear how long this can continue and if a PhD or any degree will be worth anything in the future. Having done a PhD program myself, American Academia, once the bright lamp post for free-thinking, has descended into an intolerant, bureaucratic system. While doing so, it continually touts that it is a bastion for tolerance, knowledge, and progress. How long can it ignore the worms that are eating it from the inside out?

“Can we trade our American communists with protestors of Hong Kong,” asked Allie Beth Stuckey at the end of her Relatable podcast episode, as she addressed the prevalence of Marxist ideologies in the United States. Like many conservative Americans, the Conservative Millennial has long critiqued Marxism, pointing out its devastating effects on the fundamental fabrics of society. Talking about the ratification of the Chinese National Security Law in Hong Kong, she implies that the Chinese Communist Party seized more control of the former British colony. As some Hong Kong protestors waved the star-spangled banner on the streets, conservative commentators, such as Stuckey, observed how other people look at America as the leading advocate for human rights and freedom, or as she would say, “People who want freedom.” Stuckey also proposed a voluntary exchange program for the protestors of Hong Kong with the Marxists in the United States, hoping Hong Kong protestors would provide insight into their lives under a communist regime, while also having young American Marxists experience life in a true Marxian society.

Despite how much the American Left would like me, a foreign national from Hong Kong, to differ with Stuckey and fellow conservatives, I actually agree with many of her criticisms of the Left. Traditional Asian values are very similar to American conservative values - one should work hard regardless of his or her wages. Throughout history, Asians persevered through hardships of oppressive governments and military invasions, such as the Siege of Japan in China and the Unequal Treaties. And these values are demonstrated in the economic and academic success of Asians in the United States, as most Asian immigrants persevere and work hard to achieve the “American Dream”. But perhaps seeing the Union Flag in the Hong Kong protests, American conservatives were too eager and blinded by its stars and stripes to recognize the distinct desires resting in the hearts of Hong Kong people.

A Fight for Democracy, or Something More?

Western media put a huge emphasis on the protests in Hong Kong as a matter of preserving democracy. After all, the official slogan for the protests was, “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution Now!” Contemporary American conservatism has its roots in its country’s independence - “Liberty and justice for all.” Freedom is a God-given right to man, and when it is stripped away from a tyrannical government, he ought to revolt. And being good Americans, why would conservatives not want to support the protests with seemingly identical ideas?

What Western media had failed to pick up, however, are the values that Hong Kong people truly pursue. For foreign nationals, Hong Kong is advertised as “Asia’s World City”. With its influence by Britain, article 5 of the Basic Law defines, “The socialist system and policies shall not be practiced in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years.” But even with such a law, Hong Kong residents enjoy many government benefits that are by definition socialistic. For example, the Hong Kong government recently distributed to each of its permanent residents 10,000 Hong Kong Dollars; the goal was to stimulate the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Another notable example is the Hong Kong government ensures universal healthcare for its permanent residents. Undeniably, both are classic policies of a socialist, or as conservative commentators would say, Marxian, society.

And American conservatives would say that Hong Kong’s current government is a great example of a failed democratic-socialist state. As Stuckey has said many times on her podcast, democracy and socialism do not mix. In order for its citizens to maintain autonomy, the state has to have very limited degrees of authority. Many conservatives would observe that while Hong Kong can maintain its socialistic benefits, its residents must waive their rights to allow for the government to expand its power. But conservatives cannot give up on their traditions - they must preserve people’s liberty and rights, and an authoritarian government cannot achieve that. Therefore they would urge Hong Kong residents to accept freedom and void their state-sponsored benefits. And, as Stuckey hopes, Hong Kong people would find it here in the “Land of the Free”.

But the residents in Asia’s World City are not ready to give up on these benefits anytime soon. For many Hong Kong people, freedom is piquant right now, but no one really wants to surrender the 10,000 HKD or healthcare from the government. In fact, many of my Hong Kong friends mock the United States for having limited social securities and not having universal healthcare despite being a first-world nation. On top of that, many Hong Kong residents rely on social welfare schemes from the government to make ends meet. To put it bluntly, Hong Kong residents desire a compromise between democracy and socialism. But this is exactly what American Marxists have argued for! Even though Stuckey expressed that America would really benefit from having Hong Kong protestors to provide their perspective, these voices already exist in America. And ironically, they are from American Marxists, as they loathe their own country for not providing for them!

“Freedom Plus”- Liberty in a Socialist State

Both Hong Kong protestors and American Socialists would want a democratic government, but both also want state-sponsored programs. Both want their voices to be heard, but both also want their social securities. Behind the slogan and dazzles for liberation, Hong Kong people, much like American Marxists, truly desire “Freedom Plus”. They desire a democratic government plus the social benefits of the state. They would much like to escape the tyranny of a big and authoritarian government but replace it with another big government with slightly more liberty. But conservatives have noted that this fundamental idea of Marxism - a democratic state with a socialist economy - is unattainable. So when the thoughts of the protestors are similar to the American Communists to begin with, what is there to exchange?

There is one very simple method of examining if a supposedly “anti-racist” organization or individual has underlying racist intentions. The term “anti-racist” is horrible double-speak and has its roots in the collectivist worldview, where hate speech is violence but silence is also violence. It is an attempt to control the language much like the “Thought Police” of George Orwell’s, 1984 who used the state language of “Newspeak” to control the populace¹. The term “anti-racist” does not simply mean to not be racist. It is specifically designed to force people into action. For example, universities are now widely using the term in this way: “It is not enough to not be a racist. We must be anti-racist².”

Why is this attempted collectivism a danger? The collective mindset assumes that only through group action and adherence to the group ideology can a society achieve real social change. However, this completely ignores and oftentimes actively works against individual liberties and rights. A person’s individual rights are trampled on for the “common good.” Collectivism may be working against “racism” but in so doing naturally looks at people as avatars for their group. This leaves you back at the inevitable labeling of people by their “inherent” group characteristics. It completely ignores individuality and you run the risk of becoming incredibly classist to the point where that classism might even end up back to a different form of racism.

How can we check these organizations and individuals? Replace the words “Black”, “minority”, “people of color”, “Asian”, “white”, or any other racial term with each other. If it seems like you would be unable to say the statements with these replacements then there most likely exists a double standard. The original statement may be racist in its intent.

Let’s take Black Lives Matter as an example. Would it be okay to say that “Asian Lives Matter”  in today’s discourse? If your gut response is no, then consider these excerpts directly from the BLM website, followed by the replaced text.

Original³

We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position.

Replacement

We are unapologetically White in our positioning. In affirming that White Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position.

Original

We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.

Replacement

We see ourselves as part of the global White family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as White people who exist in different parts of the world.

Let’s look at a more alt-right speaker such as Richard Spencer⁴:

Original

“We Whites are unique, and I would say maybe, uniquely frustrated. We like to believe that even when we’re obviously losing, we’re somehow winning...I actually worked among conservatives for a while… they seem to lose themselves in the abstract...they believe they are somehow winning. They’ve lost their race, they lost their people, they’ve lost who they are in these bullshit concepts like freedom.”

Replacement

“We Asians are unique, and I would say maybe, uniquely frustrated. We like to believe that even when we’re obviously losing, we’re somehow winning...I actually worked among conservatives for a while… they seem to lose themselves in the abstract...they believe they are somehow winning. They’ve lost their race, they lost their people, they’ve lost who they are in these bullshit concepts like freedom.”

What about the 1619 Project⁵?

Original

Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.

Replacement

Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. White Americans have fought to make them true.

From CNN’s Don Lemon⁶:

Original

"White men denying the existence of systemic racism, that is the essence of white entitlement. We do not need their permission or their sign off on what we know to be true and what we have lived. That is whitemansplaning. How can you solve this problem? The systemic racism that is killing people of color if you won't even admit there's a problem? First step is admitting there's a problem. America knows which way the wind is blowing."

Replacement

"Black men denying the existence of systemic racism, that is the essence of black entitlement. We do not need their permission or their sign off on what we know to be true and what we have lived. That is blackmansplaning. How can you solve this problem? The systemic racism that is killing people of noncolor if you won't even admit there's a problem? First step is admitting there's a problem. America knows which way the wind is blowing."

Conclusions

Remember, what is the goal of all of this? Well, the New York Times has made it explicit: “A re-education is necessary⁵.” The collectivists deliberately twist the meaning of terms like “anti-racist” in an attempt to coerce you to agree. The goal is to get you to submit to an ideology, not to make you “anti-racist.” It is eerily familiar to Mao’s Cultural Revolution in China.

“Our educational policy must enable everyone who receives an education to develop morally, intellectually and physically and become a worker with both socialist consciousness and culture.” - Mao Ze Dong⁷

Sources:

1. 1984. George Orwell. June 8, 1949.
2. https://www.grad.uci.edu/forms/HayesStatementGeorgeFloyd.pdf
3. https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jgyT67fP6k&feature=youtu.be&t=1373
5. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html
6. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/06/10/don_lemon_white_men_denying_systemic_racism_is_essence_of_white_entitlement_that_is_whitemansplaining.html
7. On The Correct Handling Of Contradictions Among The People. Mao Ze Dong. February 27, 1957.

We have taken the time to perform a simple analysis of COVID statistics and present graphs here. All data is available in this file.

Conclusions

There seems to be an abnormal focus on Florida, Arizona, Hawaii, and Texas though objectively they are performing decently in handling COVID-19. The next lowest performing states are New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California, though there is less media coverage around them. New York which has always been performing the worst is also mentioned frequently in health news trends which is no surprise.

News media mentions do not indicate positive or negative coverage. Additionally other national events such as the Floyd Killing may have disproportionately inflated Minnesota’s media numbers. However, this brief study shows that media mentions have little to do with the objective facts of the pandemic. News mentions were pulled specifically for Health related news coverage.

These mentions are not necessarily related to the pandemic, though it is likely that a large majority of them are. Reporting of statistics is never completely accurate. These numbers were drawn from best available data.

This study took about two hours to complete. Given the nature of today's fast moving, minimal attention span, internet landscape, it is up to individuals to do their due diligence in questioning their preferred media sources. In order to restore trust in media, individuals need to actively participate in critiquing their media choices. You can draw your own conclusions from these statistics. This is not meant to be a complete and expansive look into the pandemic.

Sources:

1. COVID Statistics - Tracker
2. CDC - Cases
3. CDC - Deaths
4. Google Trends

Imperialism is often associated with the militaristic invasion of the West to the rest of the world. Most American youth today would say that Western Imperialism has made the world a paradise for Caucasian men, while the rest of the world cannot attain the same privilege. When imperialized, one has to surrender one’s former culture, language, and even thoughts in order to assimilate, or else be treated unequally.

For the last 400 years, this definition of imperialism has been quite accurate. European powers such as Britain, Spain, and France had conquered the majority of the world at their peak. Britain had the most colonies out of all the empires. It was also undeniable that there was discrimination based on the inability or refusal of assimilation in all imperial powers.

Even though militaristic imperialism has mostly ceased in the 21st century, modern powers still engage in economic warfare. This can certainly in large part be attributed to world leaders from the 1980s, such as Ronald Regan of the United States, Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom, and even Deng Xiaoping of China. All took the neoclassical¹ approach to the world economy. But the tensions continued in the rival ideologies of capitalism and communism; people who were found to support the opposite would be silenced, imprisoned, or executed. Militaristic imperialism was on the decline, but thought imperialism had not ceased, and the consequences of not assimilating one’s thoughts remain the same - be humiliated.

The Fight Against Imperialism

Because of the violence and injustice of Western Imperialism, most people today would take the stance that imperialism, in general, has done more harm than good. To combat this, some organizations such as Black Lives Matter believe that people should “work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.” The incentive behind this is to eradicate the root problem of discrimination and inequality so these problems will cease to exist.

While the motivation to eliminate discrimination is pristine, this philosophy has one major internal contradiction, and several practical ones.

A Major Philosophical Problem

An internal contradiction arises when the razor fails to meet its own standards. The most notable example of such is the phrase “There is no truth.” If true, then there is truth, which renders the statement false. If false, then false, again. While some critics of imperialism have tried to eradicate imperialism of all kinds, the razor inevitably betrays itself. In the distant past, military imperial powers had their subjects assimilate to their culture and language. In recent times, world powers have their subjects conform to government and economic structures. Today, critics of both have their practitioners actively denounce and fight against these ideals. But those who criticize the past fail to realize that their present fight, much like their subjects of critique, is also to establish an ideal society with cultural values, language, government, and economic structure. The resistance against the violence of the past has not advanced philosophically but has, rather, stayed idle. But under basic epistemological principles, asserting universal claims is unavoidable, as each has his own ideas and worldview and wishes to advance them. Because of this, thought imperialism will continue to exist regardless of faction or worldview.

Practical Problems

Besides the philosophical problem of eliminating imperialism as a whole, there also exist at least two practical problems with this goal. The critics of imperialism who fight against injustice have either intentionally or unintentionally made their comrades do violence on people who do not hold the same view. A notable example is a pro-Beijing lawmaker in Hong Kong who was stabbed by a false supporter. While the Hong Kong Independence Movement has been a critic of the Mainland’s violence against Hong Kong by seizing more control, the Movement has had minimal criticism of this specific violence. This shows that a double standard is being upheld by those who criticize the violence of others but neglect the violence done against their opponents.

Another factor that intensifies this problem is when practitioners are emotionally motivated rather than grounded on a rational basis. This is the most manifested in the 2020 protests in the United States, with an angry mob chanting “Black Lives Matter” as it destroyed an African-American’s business. This is not to say that one mob of rioters reflects the entire organization as a whole, but to demonstrate when its practitioners are led by emotions would more likely to fall into hypocrisy. The incentive behind the eradication of imperialism in power structure is to eliminate the violence and discrimination behind it. But in this case, its practitioners had regrettably fallen into the very attitude that they had been protesting against.

The Alternative

Although we cannot stop the imperialism of thought, we can avoid some other implications of imperialism. At no point should we promote more violence and injustice, and the critics of imperialism are right about this. We can eliminate the violence, but we cannot escape the imperialism of thought. In one way or another, we are “imperializing” one another, to conform to our ideal standards or worldview. Even this article itself is unapologetically demonstrating this fact. But in engaging in these discussions there is no need for a violent response. Though one might disagree with the content or ideas of this article, for example, both parties should still be able to discuss such matters without physically attacking or even threatening one another. As such, we need to start intellectually understanding the slogans being chanted and avoid conforming to a double standard when engaging in discussions.

¹ The neoclassical approach to the economy is to regulate the importation and exportation of goods mainly based on supply and demand theory. This is one of the factors which drove most of the world to engage in economic warfare instead of militaristic warfare.

The majority of Americans have never left the United States. As such, it’s not surprising that the Chinese Cultural Revolution is a rather unknown historical and political event. However, an examination of the forces and ideologies which guided China’s Cultural Revolution will shed light on what is going on in the United States today. The Great Leap Forward and the subsequent revolution yield important lessons that Americans should heed. By understanding the past, we recognize the struggle that is currently tearing apart civil society.

Young Americans are increasingly turning to Socialism with the belief that it will solve the apparent inequities in American society. What is disturbing is that most do not even know of the history of Socialist states. Such economies are firmly implanted in collectivist thought. So what are some of the fundamental tenets of a “Cultural Revolution”?

1. Mobilization of Youth

One of Mao’s key methods of enacting the Cultural Revolution was mobilization of youth with terms and phrases like, “to rebel is justified.” This tactic is being employed increasingly in America’s youth, mainly through media portrayals of systemic oppression. The tactic is very simple: use the younger generation as militant activists by instilling the belief that their predecessors have failed to bring about social change (or enough social change). For this to work, revisionist history must be created.

The 1619 Project is the most evident neo-Marxist literature to enter mainstream America. This is a calculated piece using the collectivist playbook. The main article makes a very specific claim, “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.” This claim has a singular goal in mind. That is to deliberately paint the ideals the United States was founded upon as “false”. This means that the younger generation is now justified in rebelling against a state or “system” which they’ve deemed a failure. This is a prime example of the aforementioned move toward revisionist history.

2. Changing of Words and Their Meaning

Black Lives Matter has entered the forefront of national discourse. So much so that simple dissent over private business dress codes has made it into national headlines. News media and social media have acted in a positive feedback loop, amplifying previously local issues into massive outrage campaigns. Though this has been happening for some time (well before the 2016 election), it appears we still fall into this trap.

Many Americans are hesitant in their support of a movement which is characteristically incoherent in nature. While there is rather broad support for the simple fact that “black lives matter,” the term itself is now embroiled with several different meanings. Broadly speaking it can mean support for the general idea, or support for the movement at large, or support for the specific organization.

The organization itself, i.e. Black Lives Matter (the organization) has several items on its list of  beliefs which are more than concerning. For example, “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.” This is done through collectivization of resources and community power in which family does not matter more than the greater community. As such, loyalty lies not with the people in your life but with the greater cause. This deliberate ambiguity implies that those who disagree with it are accused of rejecting the value of black lives altogether (or the reality of racism in America)."

What does this mean?

The Cultural Revolution was organized with youth invading the established social institutions and performing public “struggle sessions”, accusing people in positions of power of their privilege. The irony being that these officials were actually party officials themselves, but now being older party officials have become “privileged” and must be replaced “for the people”. This cycle is being played out in American society as “white privilege” campaigns and social atonement ceremonies, where individuals or companies must take to social media to acknowledge their “privilege” and thus work on being “re-educated.”

But bowing to the will of the collective will not protect you. By publicizing your so-called “awokening” and acknowledgement of privilege you are only delaying the inevitable. They will still come for you because the goal is not racial reconciliation, it is Marxist revolution. The goal isn’t to improve the system. That would require the belief that the founding principles of the United States are good. The goal is to tear down the system and rebuild it into a Socialist utopia.

This is a pandemic of thought and it is here.

“God did not stop the spread of the virus.” Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York — one of the states hit hardest by COVID-19 — said to the press in mid-April, “And what we do, how we act, will dictate how that virus spreads.” Amid a (perhaps) admirable call to personal responsibility during an unprecedented time of crisis came a theologically laden remark which was quickly criticized by everyone from the governor’s fellow Catholics to fundamentalist evangelicals. But far more than being a comment of deep philosophical or pragmatic political import, Governor Cuomo’s statement evinced the final decoupling of ideas which have long held an uneasy alliance: the theologically-motivated view of America, and the humanistic idea of political and scientific progress as the ultimate goal of mankind.

Despite the relatively mild reception of the Governor’s telling remarks, many people of all stripes still hold on tightly to the ideas which he bisected. The idea of a theological America as a “Christian America” is often negatively associated with the “city on a hill” mentality of historical Manifest Destiny and modern American exceptionalism. But even the most devoted secularist has likely sung along to George Washington’s “Everyone shall sit under their own vine and fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid,” as rendered by Christopher Jackson in the hit Broadway musical Hamilton. Certainly this secular interpretation — in which the progress of political liberalism and scientific humanism ushers in the Kingdom of God — in many ways rings truer to the Enlightenment ideals of the Founding Fathers than does the rather crass romanticization of the “Christian nation.” But even if we put aside the anachronistic notion of a fundamentalist founding, America has always (at least since its European discovery) been the incubator for the theological hopes and dreams of the West.

Take for instance Francis Bacon, a prominent figure in the English court during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Bacon was chiefly a statesman and was influential to the founding of the British colonies of North America. He was also a philosopher with a keen interest in scientific progress. What would be called the “Baconian method,” though vastly inferior to subsequent “scientific methods,” was an important historical milestone of the so-called Scientific Revolution. But these two interests he maintained were by no means independent. The burgeoning development of transatlantic exploration and trade had a profound influence on his philosophical thinking about the discipline of science. The great and unfinished overarching work of his philosophical venture, the Great Instauration, bore on its cover page artwork of a ship sailing beyond two pillars, representing the Pillars of Hercules which stand at the edge of the “old world,” separating the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. Beneath it was emblazoned a motto taken from a Biblical prophecy about the end times: “But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased” (Daniel 12:4, KJV). Quite literally, in his mind, the colonization of America and the birth of the new science heralded the fulfillment of the joint prophecy that “many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” The Kingdom of God had come forth in the form of scientific humanism, and America was its cradle.

Francis Bacon, like Andrew Cuomo, was a professing Christian. Yet in his statement to the press about COVID-19, Cuomo finished what Bacon started. Looking for God’s blessing on your political and scientific enterprises is one thing, but problems lie on the horizon when your “God” becomes suspiciously identical to these affairs. For Bacon, the prayer “thy kingdom come, thy will be done” inched closer to “the New World come, science be done.” As he put it in New Atlantis, the goal of science is “enlarging the bounds of human empire,” to “the effecting of all things possible.” All things possible! These days it should come as no surprise that we cease to offer prayers altogether — finally freed from the remnants of that pesky holdover that God is still behind these things and blessing our work. Gone is the God who intervenes supernaturally to help his chosen people. Gone even is the chosen people (though that concept admittedly held out in an enervated and politicized form for far too long). Here is the God who does nothing and means nothing, except for those few whose “practical reason” still holds out hope for justice in some ethereal afterlife. In the “real world,” however, the realm of possibilities (as Kierkegaard observed in The Sickness Unto Death) has been contained neatly within the realm of probabilities — those things which can be manipulated by good science. God did not stop the spread of the virus.

So what do we do, now that this late-stage “theological Americanism” has successfully discarded both its theology and its Americanism? With this quarantine and its preservation of public health at the expense of individual well-being, it becomes ever more clear that the hollow shell of scientific humanism which remains cannot solve our problems. But this has only served to reveal the deficiencies inherent in the modern social order. Perhaps it’s time for a Great Instauration along a different track than the one we’ve walked these past four hundred years.