Great piece, Colin, a definitive analysis of the Trojan Horse mentality that has betrayed our country and the culture of the West. Once the leftist deconstructionist virus invades the body politic there is no hope, death is inevitable. And so it has proved. This iteration of the west is over. Finito. Terminado. Moffat’s unconsciously traitorous pseudo-philosophy has won. You only have to see Starmer’s new 20-strong Home Office committee, staffed entirely (but for two apologetic, wan-looking individuals) with brown people, to know that the jig is up. It’s game over for European identity in the UK. ——- Not, I hasten to add, forever! No,in time I foresee breakaway regions across Europe. Civic strife? No doubt. Civil wars? Sadly yes. Decades perhaps centuries of bitterness and bloodshed as we upholders of The Great Tradition (we’ll argue over exactly what that is later😎) struggle to reestablish Europe’s glory.
As for the spineless Moffats of this world: let’s see how they do in their imaginary fantasy toy-town universe when the brown people they seek to appease ultimately turn on them for fun. The phrase ‘don’t come crying to us’ comes
The idea that Trump could have more easily had a political career in the Democratic party is nonsense. So is the idea that his running as a Republican reflected any jnterest in virtue. He is interested in power, and respect, and he has some things he wants to accomplish. That is not caring about virtue.
"Regime apparatchiks tend to be people who can sniff the wind, not ideologues, this is how David Lammy can go from a screeching woke SJW calling Trump a KKK-fascist in 2018 to the British Foreign Secretary denouncing political violence and sucking up to Trump while pretending to be a conservative in 2024." - Academic Agent today on Substack. If the prevailing wind changed, Moffat would effortlessly change to his own advantage, chasing that flag (Dante's Inferno, Canto 3)
"What we have, then, is a man who talks about virtue but in fact cares more about other people thinking him virtuous than actually being virtuous. After all, actually being virtuous might sometimes require violating social norms, going against the consensus, and losing his social status. That’s a punishing game - enjoyed by the mad, suffered by the good, avoided by the weak."
Best quote I've read in quite some time, Woes. Brilliant! Your pen is just getting sharper and sharper.
We've transitioned from a guilt culture to a shame culture. Remarkably Moffat uses guilt culture logic to try to pretend that shame culture doesn't rule us.
Perhaps things are different in the UK, but Moffat's definition simply omits much of what is designated by this term in the US. "Cancellation" is not limited to public figures, nor is it confined to audience boycotts or social exclusion.
The paradigmatic case of "cancellation" involves a person -- not necessarily a prominent public figure -- who attracts attention by violating, or by being perceived to have violated, some tenet of the official religion. This violation need not have been particularly public -- in fact, sometimes, it is known only through second- or third-hand reports. The reports of the violation are then widely circulated among active supporters of the official religion, who not only criticize the target of cancellation directly, but more importantly, criticize his employers, associates, friends, and relatives unless they terminate all relationships, especially economic ones, with the target. They also call for those who refrain from publicly disavowing the target to be ostracized along with him. The intent is to leave the target a penniless, isolated, invisible non-entity, as a punishment for the perceived violation, a demonstration of the official religion's power, and a warning to others. Only if a significant proportion of employers, associates, etc. refuse to cut off ties to the target, or if new supporters of the target establish new and more advantageous ties with him in direct response to the controversy, can the "cancellation" be said to have failed.
From this description, it is clear that anyone could be cancelled, not just decent and civilized public figures who are mistakenly accused of violating the official religion. Presumably Moffat's sympathy would not extend to private citizens who do violate it privately, and lose their jobs as a result.
Great piece, Colin, a definitive analysis of the Trojan Horse mentality that has betrayed our country and the culture of the West. Once the leftist deconstructionist virus invades the body politic there is no hope, death is inevitable. And so it has proved. This iteration of the west is over. Finito. Terminado. Moffat’s unconsciously traitorous pseudo-philosophy has won. You only have to see Starmer’s new 20-strong Home Office committee, staffed entirely (but for two apologetic, wan-looking individuals) with brown people, to know that the jig is up. It’s game over for European identity in the UK. ——- Not, I hasten to add, forever! No,in time I foresee breakaway regions across Europe. Civic strife? No doubt. Civil wars? Sadly yes. Decades perhaps centuries of bitterness and bloodshed as we upholders of The Great Tradition (we’ll argue over exactly what that is later😎) struggle to reestablish Europe’s glory.
As for the spineless Moffats of this world: let’s see how they do in their imaginary fantasy toy-town universe when the brown people they seek to appease ultimately turn on them for fun. The phrase ‘don’t come crying to us’ comes
The idea that Trump could have more easily had a political career in the Democratic party is nonsense. So is the idea that his running as a Republican reflected any jnterest in virtue. He is interested in power, and respect, and he has some things he wants to accomplish. That is not caring about virtue.
I disagree; he was a Democrat in the 1990s and could easily have gone along with their platform.
It's a matter of opinion whether he was motivated by ambition or patriotism or both.
"Regime apparatchiks tend to be people who can sniff the wind, not ideologues, this is how David Lammy can go from a screeching woke SJW calling Trump a KKK-fascist in 2018 to the British Foreign Secretary denouncing political violence and sucking up to Trump while pretending to be a conservative in 2024." - Academic Agent today on Substack. If the prevailing wind changed, Moffat would effortlessly change to his own advantage, chasing that flag (Dante's Inferno, Canto 3)
"What we have, then, is a man who talks about virtue but in fact cares more about other people thinking him virtuous than actually being virtuous. After all, actually being virtuous might sometimes require violating social norms, going against the consensus, and losing his social status. That’s a punishing game - enjoyed by the mad, suffered by the good, avoided by the weak."
Best quote I've read in quite some time, Woes. Brilliant! Your pen is just getting sharper and sharper.
Thank you.
We've transitioned from a guilt culture to a shame culture. Remarkably Moffat uses guilt culture logic to try to pretend that shame culture doesn't rule us.
Yes, that's a good summation. It's like he hasn't noticed this major societal change!
Perhaps things are different in the UK, but Moffat's definition simply omits much of what is designated by this term in the US. "Cancellation" is not limited to public figures, nor is it confined to audience boycotts or social exclusion.
The paradigmatic case of "cancellation" involves a person -- not necessarily a prominent public figure -- who attracts attention by violating, or by being perceived to have violated, some tenet of the official religion. This violation need not have been particularly public -- in fact, sometimes, it is known only through second- or third-hand reports. The reports of the violation are then widely circulated among active supporters of the official religion, who not only criticize the target of cancellation directly, but more importantly, criticize his employers, associates, friends, and relatives unless they terminate all relationships, especially economic ones, with the target. They also call for those who refrain from publicly disavowing the target to be ostracized along with him. The intent is to leave the target a penniless, isolated, invisible non-entity, as a punishment for the perceived violation, a demonstration of the official religion's power, and a warning to others. Only if a significant proportion of employers, associates, etc. refuse to cut off ties to the target, or if new supporters of the target establish new and more advantageous ties with him in direct response to the controversy, can the "cancellation" be said to have failed.
From this description, it is clear that anyone could be cancelled, not just decent and civilized public figures who are mistakenly accused of violating the official religion. Presumably Moffat's sympathy would not extend to private citizens who do violate it privately, and lose their jobs as a result.
Cancel culture always existed. The crucial question is who is operating which moral system.