Every time I read well written retrospectives like this, every time I look at the "kindness" being perpetrated by the globalist establishment that has held the reigns of power for decades longer than you or I have been alive, I find myself thinking of "Smiling Faces Sometimes," a song by the Motown group The Undisputed Truth.
It's possible you've heard the song before. It's always been a popular one on the radio, finding frequent play on oldies stations and classic R&B/Motown stations. The song itself is a warning: don't trust someone just because they flash you a winning smile or pat you on the back. Look at what they're doing, how they're acting, and give your trust carefully and sparingly. It's a good song, both musically and for its message, and it applies very well to what you discuss here.
Oh what a tune! I should sample this for one of my songs. I assume it has many times.
I suspect this truth of interpersonal relations - that one shouldn't always just trust someone who gives you 'a pat on the back' or a nice smile - was widely known, a wisdom passed down by elders. One reason this isn't passed down is because of a lack of generational conversation.
This strategy of weaponized “kindness” is researched in depth by Dr. Joyce Benenson in “Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes” (https://a.co/d/eKSeqJj). She finds that females rate kindness (read “compliance” and “non competitiveness”) as one of the most important traits for females to have. It is a ploy to make would be competitors not compete directly and to allow indirect manipulation and status signaling that females generally prefer. This is in part why we see conservative parties start to be male majority and liberal ones as female majority.
Huh, I haven't seen this precise research - that's for sharing. As I've directly experienced, being inside an institution constituted of majority women - if you're a man - can be perplexing, and even suffocating.
Some of us females don’t like it, either. Military psyops have nothing on teenage girls and groups of women in general. And I remember “Smiling Faces Sometimes.”
Mmm, yes I've heard - ironically most of the research about the 'feminising of tertiary education' that I've read, has come from women who are dissatisfied, like Cory Clark.
My most hated expression “just be kind”. Someone said it to me regarding JK Rowling speaking up about trans issues - “why can’t she just be kind”, ie, why can’t she just shut up. It’s vomit inducing arsenic laced saccharine.
Hahah, that cracked me up - "vomit inducing arsenic laced saccharine." Indeed, if one is charitable it is an incredibly one-dimension ethical call; if one isn't charitable, it's closer to a manipulative front designed to lull the populace into believing what you're doing is right and noble.
Kindness worn as a mask and overwhelmed by self-righteousness is dangerous indeed.
However I challenge the idea that competition and dominance are inherently good, which underlies the thesis.
One alternative take is that 'dominant' people aren't the most pleasant to be around (nor are they always the most competent), and as Jean Piaget showed a century ago, at some point in their development any child is supposed to understand the bigger goal isn't to win, but to be invited to play again.
Kindness may not be the standard, but wasn't cooperation what actually enabled the ascent of our species?
If I have implied that 'competition' or 'dominance' is inherently good (under some Godly, or objectively moral framework), I mean not to - rather that they are not inherently bad: Which extreme equalitarians certainly believe.
I would agree some dominant people are not pleasant to be around (especially the neurotic ones)! I have been meaning to write an article, in fact, on the differences and overlaps between influence and dominance - how one can have one without the other and how for effective leadership one needs degrees of both.
I am fond of Piaget but embarrassingly have not read enough of him. Please show me where I can find this suggestion of his.
For your last point:
1) Kindness is in fact 'a' standard, but not the 'only' standard - which leftists push at us, and which is often a facade for achieving and maintaining power (at least for the political types). Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt's work on moral foundations suggests kindness fits under the 'care' foundation, which is 1 of 6 moral foundations.
2) I personally find it unhelpful, when thinking of biological and psychological evolution, to use the dichotomy of 'competition versus cooperation' without specifying whether this is at the group level or the individual level. Within groups, individuals competed with each other roughly allowing the best, most able, healthiest of mind and body, to rise to the top and pass on their genes. However, groups competed against other groups, and it required individuals within the group, to simultaneously cooperate with each other, in order to maximise their access to resources. Groups that were poor at cooperating would die off.
Thank you. I didn't mean to caricature or misinterpret, and I'm in no place to blame anyone for trade-offs between nuance and word count... But in that spirit, I wouldn't want anyone's takeaway to be "I told you bro: you're either alpha or cuck" (sic)
I believe it is in "The moral judgement of the child" that while studying children playing marbles, Piaget notes at a later stage of development, children start appreciating the social nature of games, fairness, mutual respect, and good relationships.
No embarrassment there, or I'd be ashamed every day for all things I haven't read!
I agree there are layers to competition / cooperation. Some things can be either, or both, like hunting or games.
Even neither, if one decides to do something on their own.
Within groups, there is both, and no ideal trait. Maybe my dominant, aggressive territoriality will impress a potential mate when she's getting mugged, but turn them away forever when I argue with their dad.
And they can't account for everything. Maybe she just likes me because I'm handsome, witty, and smell like a forest in the Spring.
Anthropologists will never know 😉
Or maybe I am not as fearsome to my enemies as discerning and wise--to the point I have none and everyone likes me.
So indeed, the dichotomy doesn't help much to understand people. Nobody in their right mind outside a faculty department walks around thinking about a competition or cooperation binary. People rise to the occasion, get lucky, have bad days.
And yet it is useful as a lens to understand ourselves, even today. It seems the collaborate/cooperate boundary is still as blurry--colleagues work together but only one gets to be the boss. The boss doesn't have the monopoly of influence. Etc.
I would venture, though, that while we live in the densest, most complex and interconnected system to ever be, we are also more bent to competition than ever--and increasingly, frighteningly so.
I’m a moderate US Democrat. I was on Twitter/X for 10 years, from 2011 to 2021. I often disagreed (respectfully) with both liberals and conservatives. Conservatives would debate me respectfully and try to convince me of their positions. Liberals would call me names, swear at me, and block me.
I'm sorry to hear that. Do you think there is a way forward for modern liberals? A new left, as it were? Or does it simply need to return to classical liberalism?
Gosh I hope there's a way forward. If the authoritarianism that Trump and his appointees is not countered, the next four years won't be much fun for many of us.
The Left destroyed itself with its descent into identity politics and cancel culture. Leftists became very smug and arrogant, thinking that they owned the culture and that no one could take it away from them. Well, the Right is gaining power globally - and quickly. We see that in the US, in Canada, in Italy, in Australia, in Argentina, and in other places. Leftist authoritarianism has played itself out, and people are tired of it. Now it's the Right's turn to overplay its hand.
The Far Left authoritarians are not going to give up their power easily. They are still screaming that everyone is racist, sexist, homophobic, and so on. Many people who were once afraid of the Far Left are now tuning them out, but they will not cede power to the Center Left (which needs to happen).
The result is that the Right - Trump, Orbán, Meloni, Milei, et al. - is going to come to ascendancy. I'm an optimist by nature, but I'm worried.
I agree with you that leftists rely exclusively on ad hominem personal attacks based on nothing, in order to establish their arguments, but that should tell us who they are. As a Trump voter myself, who has been a teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District for 24 years, I can assure you, that within the walls of the deep blue state institutions, "kindness" is a club, as in, a weapon of mass destruction. It's used to ferret out independent thinkers, contrarian viewpoints, and to flatten the community around them into the scorched earth of false compassion cut off from any meaningful idea except the institution as god. Flannery O'Connor wrote about false compassion cut, saying that cut off from its source, the suffering of Christ, it leads to concentration camps and the gas chamber. The Right doesn't force "kindness" on anyone. No need to worry.
I was fully red-pilled three years ago after seeing the poll where majority of the democrats were willing to jail the unvaccinated. This “we are kind” nonsense is just a smokescreen for authoritarianism and incompetence. Got out of LA two months after that.
<If the authoritarianism that Trump and his appointees is not countered, the next four years won't be much fun for many of us> Judging by this comment, I'm pretty sure it won't be fun for you. As someone who escaped from the former Soviet Union, I don't see much difference between the current Democratic Party and the Soviet Communist Party of the old. And yes, this includes the self-professed "moderates" who continue to defend the indefensible and vote with the authoritarian "progressives."
Oddly enough. I’ve just returned from an unexpected nine-day stay in Auckland after my spouse collapsed and died at the airport while in transit between the US and Australia. Every single person who we dealt with to unravel and perform the many steps we needed to take to repatriate remains to the US - airport staff, police, paramedics, the coroner’s office, government agencies, both the US and Australian consulates, Air New Zealand, every employee at the Pullman Airport hotel, Gareth and the staff at H Morris funeral services, and many more were “God in skin.” As awful as this unexpected death was, I’m lucky to have gotten to know these New Zealanders, who practiced actual kindness - sincere, embracing and heartfelt- because it is part of the culture. It was human and real, not political, and I’m deeply grateful for it.
I'm sorry to hear about your spouse - that must have been an awful experience. I'm glad my fellow New Zealanders expressed kindness, and did what they could. And I think you are right - we do have a relatively tight-nit civil version of 'love thy neighbour' generally, I believe.
I live in New Zealand, and I can tell you that woman caused nothing but irreparable damage to our economy. She was on the way out along with the labour government and then we had the mosque attack and boom she was saved just in the nick of time. Then she was riding the empathy ride for a while wearing the headscarf, then the purple were tiring of hearing nothing from her on how she was going to build this country, then boom Covid hit, she was saved again. However it was the nail in her coffin, she demanded people to be vaccinated or loose your livelihoods ahead pitted families, neighbours and colleagues against each other and every day her dribble of rubbish would be televised. She is one of the most despised ex politicians we have ever had.
Yeah, that’s bound to happen. Most ex politicians always secure something cushy. I actually can’t stand to see her smug face, she is the most condescending communicators I have ever had the displeasure to listen to. However she has been replaced with an equally spineless idiot, in fact NZ is in real trouble with spineless idiots running the beehive.
When I cast my eyes over the political landscape, I do so with an admitted Christian Worldview. One lego piece of this worldview is the assumed selfishness of human nature. It is a confession that we are not “basically good and perfectable.” Christians believe that this lack of goodness is the more correct description of human nature and is universal.
When we compare the Christian Worldview with the social products of the Enlightenment and the elevation of Man As The Measure Of All Things, we see a significant dichotomy. The present “progressive” worldview is just a reiteration of the Secular Humanism that has spawned socialism, tried and tried but never perfected. (nor will it ever be as it is based on a faulty assumption of human nature) Looking around, I need no encouragement to believe in our universal lack of goodness. Looking inside my own life confirms it, and I am left with the single appeal to the One who was murdered by evil men 2000 years ago but ultimately gained victory over their evil nature by Resurrection. It has held me in good stead for almost 50 years, since I converted at the age of 21.
The older I get, the more I realize that empathy and “niceness” are being weaponized. It’s refreshing to see research that confirms that these emotions are not just fleeting feelings but shared experiences of others who had the resources to investigate them further. As a former liberal, I’ve noticed that the right wing tends to be more receptive to outsiders and less critical than my liberal colleagues. It’s as if reality is bending to suit their preferences. Thank you for sharing this; it’s truly eye-opening.
Good article - I think the left with their socialist ideology based on unworkable dogma have no intention of changing being on the gravy train, rent seeking in the UK is out of control - those who support a bigger state believe they are kind, but really they are selfish as they have no care for who pays on the long run, hoping wealthy people pick up the tab by deriding American billionaires - they are so out of touch with the crossroads we are at, that any nation not innovating is dying that they would as I read somewhere else today, rather you and them die than you succeed without paying them for the privilege ! The cult of jealousy is alive and well and calling it left wing is misleading, it’s the practise of rent seeking for sure !
Great essay. The core question is what does it mean to be kind? Often, what appears as kind becomes cruelty. Last year, I was in Japan for business and was struck by the difference of Tokyo, Kyoto, and Osaka compared to major western cities I'd visited earlier. Clearly, "Kind" leaders bring disaster. What we need are wise leaders.
BTW, it's good to hear some degree of sanity is returning to NZ.
Ouf, The Ministry of Horse Teeth was the worst. And all you say is true, 'progressives' both lack genuine empathy (the ability to understand the feelings or perspectives of others) and are prone to authoritarianism.
I think the defining characteristic of leftists & liberals is their deep and constant dishonesty. Yes, they are stupid, selfish, mean, thieves, narcissists, hypocrites, virtue-signalers, poseurs, etc. to varying degrees, but they all lie like the devil.
Research suggests they have higher rates of narcissism and machiavellianism - essentially attention seeking manipulators. (There are other things, too)
As an actual "bleeding heart" liberal myself (not really, all the labels are garbage), I've credited the liberals-by-narrative-only with the rise of a brand of populism that is very "unserious" about making things better. This is not to say that anyone without a negative opinion about this brand is silly themselves or even wrong. I just think people are settling for "less bad" while entertaining that things will be substantively better without real effort. I'm glad of the direction the pendulum has swung, but I'll not be pretending narcissists of a different flavor are more than a side grade.
Part of "being kind" is holding people to meaningful account in an understanding way, and subjecting oneself to the same. Both effort and results have to matter.
As a child, I was very much attracted to the universalism of liberalism - a civil version of 'we are all God's children' (I still am, in fact). Whether this is actually possible in practice, is another thing. Research suggests that once a society contains a large enough proportion of ethnic and cultural groups, division occurs - it is natural, groups compete against other groups as we have always done since the savanna.
About the 'less bad' thing, I would guess swing voters and the centre may think that way; although, economic stagnation is an issue for a very many middle and lower class people. If their situation is improved by the current administration, then they may be view it in a more positive light.
On your final point, you are right. I think of it as a failure to recognise the second order effects of kindness. An example: You have a person who has been out of work for a while, maybe they've experienced a death in the family, and they're on governmental benefits. They're wallowing on self-pity, and it's bad situation - but they've been drinking, and they're getting worse, frankly. As a close friend or family member, 'first-order kindness' might be to not expose to them that they are wallowing in self-pity. It wouldn't 'be kind' to suggest to them their grieving process needs to end, because it's effecting themselves and other people who love them. However, the second-order effect of 'being kind' in this situation and not telling them, could be they become an alcoholic, lose all their friends and family, and worst case, kill themselves. In this instance, one needs to consider SECOND-ORDER KINDNESS, rather than FIRST-ORDER KINDNESS - one needs to inform the person to stop grieving and get a job - a potentially first-order 'unkind' thing to do, for the result of eventually getting them back on their feet and integrated back into society - the second-order kind thing to do. That's how I view it. Hope it makes sense.
It makes plenty of sense. I tend to think of the parental attempt at kindness, which can take on any order. Wildly uninformed, yet attempted best guesses at what makes a child motivated toward good things, safe from things too dangerous, exposed enough for their age and idiosyncrasies to take a step forward that lends then to the next step needed. Often to fight with a spouse or coparent over the state of the world or the state of the child or both. Kindness is complicated. "Kindness" is simple.
Yes, kindness is much harder than a slogan that's for sure. And plenty of people may intentionally or otherwise, view your actions as unkind, not realising the context.
Yeah - I think their fundamental problem, the radical left's that is - is that they fail to reproduce, they consist of competitively weak people (physically weak, mentally unstable), and they constantly purge their own. Over time, they're destroying themselves.
This is the greatest psychological trap facing the West today. It’s a painful, yet necessary, decision to confront. From an analytical perspective, the loss of psychological grounding—the Ego-Self axis—has left people adrift on an unconscious river with no anchor. It’s incredibly easy to manipulate people now; it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. I wasn’t up-to-date on Jacinda—thanks for pointing that out. Shocking, but not surprising.
Every time I read well written retrospectives like this, every time I look at the "kindness" being perpetrated by the globalist establishment that has held the reigns of power for decades longer than you or I have been alive, I find myself thinking of "Smiling Faces Sometimes," a song by the Motown group The Undisputed Truth.
It's possible you've heard the song before. It's always been a popular one on the radio, finding frequent play on oldies stations and classic R&B/Motown stations. The song itself is a warning: don't trust someone just because they flash you a winning smile or pat you on the back. Look at what they're doing, how they're acting, and give your trust carefully and sparingly. It's a good song, both musically and for its message, and it applies very well to what you discuss here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9yBjgrnpWI
Oh what a tune! I should sample this for one of my songs. I assume it has many times.
I suspect this truth of interpersonal relations - that one shouldn't always just trust someone who gives you 'a pat on the back' or a nice smile - was widely known, a wisdom passed down by elders. One reason this isn't passed down is because of a lack of generational conversation.
This strategy of weaponized “kindness” is researched in depth by Dr. Joyce Benenson in “Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes” (https://a.co/d/eKSeqJj). She finds that females rate kindness (read “compliance” and “non competitiveness”) as one of the most important traits for females to have. It is a ploy to make would be competitors not compete directly and to allow indirect manipulation and status signaling that females generally prefer. This is in part why we see conservative parties start to be male majority and liberal ones as female majority.
Huh, I haven't seen this precise research - that's for sharing. As I've directly experienced, being inside an institution constituted of majority women - if you're a man - can be perplexing, and even suffocating.
Some of us females don’t like it, either. Military psyops have nothing on teenage girls and groups of women in general. And I remember “Smiling Faces Sometimes.”
Mmm, yes I've heard - ironically most of the research about the 'feminising of tertiary education' that I've read, has come from women who are dissatisfied, like Cory Clark.
And most of them are proudly childless
We’ve devolved into Gynocracy
My most hated expression “just be kind”. Someone said it to me regarding JK Rowling speaking up about trans issues - “why can’t she just be kind”, ie, why can’t she just shut up. It’s vomit inducing arsenic laced saccharine.
Hahah, that cracked me up - "vomit inducing arsenic laced saccharine." Indeed, if one is charitable it is an incredibly one-dimension ethical call; if one isn't charitable, it's closer to a manipulative front designed to lull the populace into believing what you're doing is right and noble.
Agreed. It’s a dumbing down of the masses. A Soma panacea.
Why can’t they just be logical?
Interesting read.
Kindness worn as a mask and overwhelmed by self-righteousness is dangerous indeed.
However I challenge the idea that competition and dominance are inherently good, which underlies the thesis.
One alternative take is that 'dominant' people aren't the most pleasant to be around (nor are they always the most competent), and as Jean Piaget showed a century ago, at some point in their development any child is supposed to understand the bigger goal isn't to win, but to be invited to play again.
Kindness may not be the standard, but wasn't cooperation what actually enabled the ascent of our species?
Great comment.
If I have implied that 'competition' or 'dominance' is inherently good (under some Godly, or objectively moral framework), I mean not to - rather that they are not inherently bad: Which extreme equalitarians certainly believe.
I would agree some dominant people are not pleasant to be around (especially the neurotic ones)! I have been meaning to write an article, in fact, on the differences and overlaps between influence and dominance - how one can have one without the other and how for effective leadership one needs degrees of both.
I am fond of Piaget but embarrassingly have not read enough of him. Please show me where I can find this suggestion of his.
For your last point:
1) Kindness is in fact 'a' standard, but not the 'only' standard - which leftists push at us, and which is often a facade for achieving and maintaining power (at least for the political types). Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt's work on moral foundations suggests kindness fits under the 'care' foundation, which is 1 of 6 moral foundations.
2) I personally find it unhelpful, when thinking of biological and psychological evolution, to use the dichotomy of 'competition versus cooperation' without specifying whether this is at the group level or the individual level. Within groups, individuals competed with each other roughly allowing the best, most able, healthiest of mind and body, to rise to the top and pass on their genes. However, groups competed against other groups, and it required individuals within the group, to simultaneously cooperate with each other, in order to maximise their access to resources. Groups that were poor at cooperating would die off.
Thank you. I didn't mean to caricature or misinterpret, and I'm in no place to blame anyone for trade-offs between nuance and word count... But in that spirit, I wouldn't want anyone's takeaway to be "I told you bro: you're either alpha or cuck" (sic)
I believe it is in "The moral judgement of the child" that while studying children playing marbles, Piaget notes at a later stage of development, children start appreciating the social nature of games, fairness, mutual respect, and good relationships.
No embarrassment there, or I'd be ashamed every day for all things I haven't read!
I agree there are layers to competition / cooperation. Some things can be either, or both, like hunting or games.
Even neither, if one decides to do something on their own.
Within groups, there is both, and no ideal trait. Maybe my dominant, aggressive territoriality will impress a potential mate when she's getting mugged, but turn them away forever when I argue with their dad.
And they can't account for everything. Maybe she just likes me because I'm handsome, witty, and smell like a forest in the Spring.
Anthropologists will never know 😉
Or maybe I am not as fearsome to my enemies as discerning and wise--to the point I have none and everyone likes me.
So indeed, the dichotomy doesn't help much to understand people. Nobody in their right mind outside a faculty department walks around thinking about a competition or cooperation binary. People rise to the occasion, get lucky, have bad days.
And yet it is useful as a lens to understand ourselves, even today. It seems the collaborate/cooperate boundary is still as blurry--colleagues work together but only one gets to be the boss. The boss doesn't have the monopoly of influence. Etc.
I would venture, though, that while we live in the densest, most complex and interconnected system to ever be, we are also more bent to competition than ever--and increasingly, frighteningly so.
I’m a moderate US Democrat. I was on Twitter/X for 10 years, from 2011 to 2021. I often disagreed (respectfully) with both liberals and conservatives. Conservatives would debate me respectfully and try to convince me of their positions. Liberals would call me names, swear at me, and block me.
I was never disrespectful to anyone.
I'm sorry to hear that. Do you think there is a way forward for modern liberals? A new left, as it were? Or does it simply need to return to classical liberalism?
Gosh I hope there's a way forward. If the authoritarianism that Trump and his appointees is not countered, the next four years won't be much fun for many of us.
The Left destroyed itself with its descent into identity politics and cancel culture. Leftists became very smug and arrogant, thinking that they owned the culture and that no one could take it away from them. Well, the Right is gaining power globally - and quickly. We see that in the US, in Canada, in Italy, in Australia, in Argentina, and in other places. Leftist authoritarianism has played itself out, and people are tired of it. Now it's the Right's turn to overplay its hand.
The Far Left authoritarians are not going to give up their power easily. They are still screaming that everyone is racist, sexist, homophobic, and so on. Many people who were once afraid of the Far Left are now tuning them out, but they will not cede power to the Center Left (which needs to happen).
The result is that the Right - Trump, Orbán, Meloni, Milei, et al. - is going to come to ascendancy. I'm an optimist by nature, but I'm worried.
I agree with you that leftists rely exclusively on ad hominem personal attacks based on nothing, in order to establish their arguments, but that should tell us who they are. As a Trump voter myself, who has been a teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District for 24 years, I can assure you, that within the walls of the deep blue state institutions, "kindness" is a club, as in, a weapon of mass destruction. It's used to ferret out independent thinkers, contrarian viewpoints, and to flatten the community around them into the scorched earth of false compassion cut off from any meaningful idea except the institution as god. Flannery O'Connor wrote about false compassion cut, saying that cut off from its source, the suffering of Christ, it leads to concentration camps and the gas chamber. The Right doesn't force "kindness" on anyone. No need to worry.
I was fully red-pilled three years ago after seeing the poll where majority of the democrats were willing to jail the unvaccinated. This “we are kind” nonsense is just a smokescreen for authoritarianism and incompetence. Got out of LA two months after that.
<If the authoritarianism that Trump and his appointees is not countered, the next four years won't be much fun for many of us> Judging by this comment, I'm pretty sure it won't be fun for you. As someone who escaped from the former Soviet Union, I don't see much difference between the current Democratic Party and the Soviet Communist Party of the old. And yes, this includes the self-professed "moderates" who continue to defend the indefensible and vote with the authoritarian "progressives."
Oddly enough. I’ve just returned from an unexpected nine-day stay in Auckland after my spouse collapsed and died at the airport while in transit between the US and Australia. Every single person who we dealt with to unravel and perform the many steps we needed to take to repatriate remains to the US - airport staff, police, paramedics, the coroner’s office, government agencies, both the US and Australian consulates, Air New Zealand, every employee at the Pullman Airport hotel, Gareth and the staff at H Morris funeral services, and many more were “God in skin.” As awful as this unexpected death was, I’m lucky to have gotten to know these New Zealanders, who practiced actual kindness - sincere, embracing and heartfelt- because it is part of the culture. It was human and real, not political, and I’m deeply grateful for it.
I'm sorry to hear about your spouse - that must have been an awful experience. I'm glad my fellow New Zealanders expressed kindness, and did what they could. And I think you are right - we do have a relatively tight-nit civil version of 'love thy neighbour' generally, I believe.
I live in New Zealand, and I can tell you that woman caused nothing but irreparable damage to our economy. She was on the way out along with the labour government and then we had the mosque attack and boom she was saved just in the nick of time. Then she was riding the empathy ride for a while wearing the headscarf, then the purple were tiring of hearing nothing from her on how she was going to build this country, then boom Covid hit, she was saved again. However it was the nail in her coffin, she demanded people to be vaccinated or loose your livelihoods ahead pitted families, neighbours and colleagues against each other and every day her dribble of rubbish would be televised. She is one of the most despised ex politicians we have ever had.
Well said.
And then they make her a 'Dame' and go make a film about her.
Go figure.
Yeah, that’s bound to happen. Most ex politicians always secure something cushy. I actually can’t stand to see her smug face, she is the most condescending communicators I have ever had the displeasure to listen to. However she has been replaced with an equally spineless idiot, in fact NZ is in real trouble with spineless idiots running the beehive.
I agree with you once more; Luxon is just a shade of her, or a mirror, nothing more.
Yes, he is a real disappointment. But even worse than him is chippy.
When I cast my eyes over the political landscape, I do so with an admitted Christian Worldview. One lego piece of this worldview is the assumed selfishness of human nature. It is a confession that we are not “basically good and perfectable.” Christians believe that this lack of goodness is the more correct description of human nature and is universal.
When we compare the Christian Worldview with the social products of the Enlightenment and the elevation of Man As The Measure Of All Things, we see a significant dichotomy. The present “progressive” worldview is just a reiteration of the Secular Humanism that has spawned socialism, tried and tried but never perfected. (nor will it ever be as it is based on a faulty assumption of human nature) Looking around, I need no encouragement to believe in our universal lack of goodness. Looking inside my own life confirms it, and I am left with the single appeal to the One who was murdered by evil men 2000 years ago but ultimately gained victory over their evil nature by Resurrection. It has held me in good stead for almost 50 years, since I converted at the age of 21.
Well said, and thanks for sharing your journey.
I agree, the denial of innate flaws helps explain so much of liberal and progressive behaviour, the narcissism that has been getting out of control.
I agree once more we have had a crisis of redemption in our society - that we have refused this necessary avenue for the soul in people.
"The Left" are oddly naive. The idea that "if we throw everything they want at them, they'll be good" seems a persistent fantasy.
Then delusion follows to explain the nasty but predictable (to anyone else) results.
I meant to add that the notion of concupiscence might be enlightening!
The older I get, the more I realize that empathy and “niceness” are being weaponized. It’s refreshing to see research that confirms that these emotions are not just fleeting feelings but shared experiences of others who had the resources to investigate them further. As a former liberal, I’ve noticed that the right wing tends to be more receptive to outsiders and less critical than my liberal colleagues. It’s as if reality is bending to suit their preferences. Thank you for sharing this; it’s truly eye-opening.
No worries, thank you for reading. As a formal liberal myself, I know exactly what you mean.
Good article - I think the left with their socialist ideology based on unworkable dogma have no intention of changing being on the gravy train, rent seeking in the UK is out of control - those who support a bigger state believe they are kind, but really they are selfish as they have no care for who pays on the long run, hoping wealthy people pick up the tab by deriding American billionaires - they are so out of touch with the crossroads we are at, that any nation not innovating is dying that they would as I read somewhere else today, rather you and them die than you succeed without paying them for the privilege ! The cult of jealousy is alive and well and calling it left wing is misleading, it’s the practise of rent seeking for sure !
Great essay. The core question is what does it mean to be kind? Often, what appears as kind becomes cruelty. Last year, I was in Japan for business and was struck by the difference of Tokyo, Kyoto, and Osaka compared to major western cities I'd visited earlier. Clearly, "Kind" leaders bring disaster. What we need are wise leaders.
BTW, it's good to hear some degree of sanity is returning to NZ.
Ouf, The Ministry of Horse Teeth was the worst. And all you say is true, 'progressives' both lack genuine empathy (the ability to understand the feelings or perspectives of others) and are prone to authoritarianism.
I think the defining characteristic of leftists & liberals is their deep and constant dishonesty. Yes, they are stupid, selfish, mean, thieves, narcissists, hypocrites, virtue-signalers, poseurs, etc. to varying degrees, but they all lie like the devil.
Research suggests they have higher rates of narcissism and machiavellianism - essentially attention seeking manipulators. (There are other things, too)
Kindness has gone too far.
Great essay.
Great read.
As an actual "bleeding heart" liberal myself (not really, all the labels are garbage), I've credited the liberals-by-narrative-only with the rise of a brand of populism that is very "unserious" about making things better. This is not to say that anyone without a negative opinion about this brand is silly themselves or even wrong. I just think people are settling for "less bad" while entertaining that things will be substantively better without real effort. I'm glad of the direction the pendulum has swung, but I'll not be pretending narcissists of a different flavor are more than a side grade.
Part of "being kind" is holding people to meaningful account in an understanding way, and subjecting oneself to the same. Both effort and results have to matter.
As a child, I was very much attracted to the universalism of liberalism - a civil version of 'we are all God's children' (I still am, in fact). Whether this is actually possible in practice, is another thing. Research suggests that once a society contains a large enough proportion of ethnic and cultural groups, division occurs - it is natural, groups compete against other groups as we have always done since the savanna.
About the 'less bad' thing, I would guess swing voters and the centre may think that way; although, economic stagnation is an issue for a very many middle and lower class people. If their situation is improved by the current administration, then they may be view it in a more positive light.
On your final point, you are right. I think of it as a failure to recognise the second order effects of kindness. An example: You have a person who has been out of work for a while, maybe they've experienced a death in the family, and they're on governmental benefits. They're wallowing on self-pity, and it's bad situation - but they've been drinking, and they're getting worse, frankly. As a close friend or family member, 'first-order kindness' might be to not expose to them that they are wallowing in self-pity. It wouldn't 'be kind' to suggest to them their grieving process needs to end, because it's effecting themselves and other people who love them. However, the second-order effect of 'being kind' in this situation and not telling them, could be they become an alcoholic, lose all their friends and family, and worst case, kill themselves. In this instance, one needs to consider SECOND-ORDER KINDNESS, rather than FIRST-ORDER KINDNESS - one needs to inform the person to stop grieving and get a job - a potentially first-order 'unkind' thing to do, for the result of eventually getting them back on their feet and integrated back into society - the second-order kind thing to do. That's how I view it. Hope it makes sense.
It makes plenty of sense. I tend to think of the parental attempt at kindness, which can take on any order. Wildly uninformed, yet attempted best guesses at what makes a child motivated toward good things, safe from things too dangerous, exposed enough for their age and idiosyncrasies to take a step forward that lends then to the next step needed. Often to fight with a spouse or coparent over the state of the world or the state of the child or both. Kindness is complicated. "Kindness" is simple.
Yes, kindness is much harder than a slogan that's for sure. And plenty of people may intentionally or otherwise, view your actions as unkind, not realising the context.
I like your optimistic tone. It's too bad that if it were 100% to-scale, it would read like a dystopic nightmare generation.
Yeah - I think their fundamental problem, the radical left's that is - is that they fail to reproduce, they consist of competitively weak people (physically weak, mentally unstable), and they constantly purge their own. Over time, they're destroying themselves.
A personal joy and satisfaction of mine.
This is the greatest psychological trap facing the West today. It’s a painful, yet necessary, decision to confront. From an analytical perspective, the loss of psychological grounding—the Ego-Self axis—has left people adrift on an unconscious river with no anchor. It’s incredibly easy to manipulate people now; it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. I wasn’t up-to-date on Jacinda—thanks for pointing that out. Shocking, but not surprising.