“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." -- GK Chesterton
Chesterton’s Fence has a certain popularity amongst those who wish oppose various socially progressive ideas, and there is a misconception that those who wish to destroy this or that are doing so without considering the nature of what they wish to tear down. That if the progressive adhered to Chesterton’s Fence that there could be a more productive conversation between the reformer and his opponents. This is a grave mistake. It may be a hard thing to accept, but the revolutionary often has a better understanding of the nature and purpose of the institutions he wishes to dismantle than those who oppose him.
Take for instance the widespread acceptance among certain Christian communities of LGBTQ ideology or Feminism. Acceptance of both of these ideologies by Christians require the dismantling fences that have stood for thousands of years. Their opponents might naively bemoan that these progressives should have considered why things were the way they were; that an appeal the “niceness” of modernity was no basis for such sweeping changes; that they should have considered Chesterton’s Fence. The thing is these people know the purpose of the fences in question and are lying about their reason for wanting to tear them down. In fact, they are lying about even wanting to tear them down; they claim that after removing everything but the posts that the fences has been improved. They are lying.
To understand why they do this, you need to know what they know: what is the fence for, and why they would want it gone. It would also help to know why they are lying.
When the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was signed into law, its proponents made two claims. The first was that the old quota system unjustly restricted immigration because it expressly aimed to maintain the character of the American people, that is to say a Nation predominantly comprised of White Christians. Their second claim that the law would not have a significant impact on the culture or demographics of the American people. Obviously, they were talking out of both sides of their mouths. You see, Emanuel Cellar knew the purpose of US immigration law prior to 1965, but he didn’t go around saying that the predominantly White and Christian nature of the United States must be destroyed: he claimed that the principles that protected such a system were unjust, then he claimed that the major changes he proposed would have no effect. He was not ignorant of the nature of the thing he wanted to destroy; he ignored its nature and appealed to the better nature of the American people for permission to destroy it. In short, he was lying.
Chesterton’s Fence presumes that the reformer is not actively engaged in subterfuge, but this is not typically the case. The revolutionary knows why the fence is there but demands of its defender “why do you care; how does this even effect you?” when he begins to tear it down. They don’t want you to know what the fence is for, and they certainly don’t want you to know that they know what the fence is for. They are lying.
Why would Philip Hart, Emanual Cellar, and Lyndon Johnson lie? Because it would have been a pretty hard sell, even to the rank-and-file liberal of last century, to say “we should pass a law aimed at reducing the White proportion of the population,” but that’s what they were aiming for. It was, however, surprisingly easy to convince Americans left-right-and-center that they ought to be nicer to foreigners of all creeds and colors, never mind that the framers of the Hart-Caller act were expressly aiming to tear down the fence that maintained the ethnic and religious nature of the American Nation. It was an appeal to be allowed to use American principles to destroy the Americans that upheld those same principles. They were again, of course, lying.
When barbarians arrive at the gate saying, “we are not a conquering enemy; we are but poor refugees,” do not believe them. When the progressive says, ‘we do not want to destroy the American family; we are only teaching your children empathy for the other,” do not believe them. When the pastor says, “we do not wish to change the Christian Religion; we are simply teaching our flock to be more tolerant,” do not believe them. Assume they are lying.
Summarized:
The left accuses the right of being evil because the left is evil, the right accuses the left of being stupid because the right is stupid.
Well, yes. I suppose I took 7 paragraphs to state the obvious, but I think there is value in unpacking what "everybody knows." I alluded to this in my first paragraph: "the revolutionary often has a better understanding of the nature and purpose of the institutions he wishes to dismantle than those who oppose him." If we want people to oppose wanton social changes, the "conservative" ought to know what he is defending.
It's fine to say things multiple ways. It might just get through to somebody.
There’s definitely a lot of that going on, but I think the larger issue is actually simpler and more depressing.
A lot of people are more like NPCs. There are many different ways in which people believe things and act. A very large number of people—maybe even the largest number of people—go by social queues and what they’re told. Particularly women. And more recently, demasculinized men trying to make it with those women for lack of options. A lot of these women are now on SSRIs. The burden of what it takes for them to believe something is now very low. It just needs to be on their phone.
It isn’t really them being stupid. Or them actively being evil revolutionaries, though those exist. It’s that those people that can very easily believe anything if enough people do are now constantly plugged into woke ideology and raised on it from birth, and just go with what’s popular at the time due to social media algorithms. That’s why there’s a general lack of coherency on the surface of a lot of things they support and do. They’re against climate change but fire bomb Teslas and support children flying around in private jets. Queers for Palestine. It isn’t incoherent under the surface though. It’s whatever works on the social media algorithms for crazy bitches on SSRIs.
The epistemological fabric of the world for many people has been poisoned. It isn’t even being coopted entirely by revolutionary types so much as simply social media algorithms. That’s part of why there’s a shifting away. The algorithms on sites like X changed.
Conservatives have consistently failed to conserve anything at all. https://youtu.be/BBJnBSBditU
I'll say that's not exactly it, because both groups are made up of what i call "actuals" and "incidentals"
Actuals know what they believe and why to some degree. They have principles and construct a worldview to make sense of reality.
Incidentals believe stuff, but it's broadly speaking a fashion choice. They start with their narrative of self, and then fit beliefs into it. They try to live up to their dads ideals or don't based on whether or not they view themselves as someone who accepts or rejects their father figure rather than what the beliefs actually are. Which then cascades into every other belief and taste.
The vast majority of every social movement is made up of the second group, and the work of actuals is largely about mobilization and motivation rather than convinging anybody of anything. They eonr be convinced because they never were.
A lot of people deploy comically unreasonable standards of evidence for declaring malice. Even if every action a person takes very clearly advances a singular goal, there will still be people out there who demand “ironclad proof” on par with a spontaneous written confession. And half of those “credulous idiots” are just being disingenuous and malicious as well.
It's because the concept of malice itself is useless in such a razor, by design. It's completely undefined. When convenient, shameless self-interest stops being 'malice', it's just someone looking out for themselves. Wanton disregard for consequences stops being 'malice', it's just a lack of care. The bad actor can just claim a lack of foresight or insight, thereby turning all their actions 'stupid' and evading the heavier punishment they risk for undefined 'malice'. Hanlon's Shield is what it should be called.
That’s fantastic.
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. Both require removal from power by whatever means necessary.
I use Hanlon's Razor frequently and recommend it to others despite its origin. I think its a pretty good maxim, but I do point out that it, being a so-called razor, presumes "all things being equal." It does not rule out actual malice.
I think recognizing the abundance of actual malice was the inspiration for my little screed.
PS: Back to Hanlon's razor, I've always liked the corollary "sufficiently advanced incompetency may be indistinguishable from malice." But again, actual malice is real and ought to be recognized.
“Where malice is treated as incompetence, both shall flourish.
Where incompetence is treated as malice, both shall whither.”
Also: Hanlon’s Razor only works in a world without Hanlon’s Razor.
It's time we stop listening to what the modern world has to say about the "old" ways and start to rediscover them. There's some remarkable prescience on how these things came to happen.
It’s an important day when you realize that you shouldn’t demonize your own ancestors at the behest of a contemporary outgroup that hates you and seeks to outcompete you.
Then you realize how far that group will go to silence you if you say they have disproportionate power and influence
You can only twist social technology so far before things start breaking horribly.
This is why I've thrown Hanlon's Razor clear outta my toolbox when it comes to politics. When it coms to destructive potential, there is no difference between saboteurs and simpletons. Save for one. For some reason, we give simpletons pity. Pity and multiple chances to ruin everything. Little wonder there's a race to the bottom.
I'm done giving the benefit of the doubt. Stupidity is the perfect mask for malice, and even when it isn't, people NEED to be held responsible, at the very least so that they LEARN!
I'm a little shocked that my post became a discussion of Hanlon's Razor and is failings. It was not my intent. I did not say anything in my OP other than "they are lying." Of course, Hanlon breaks down if someone's lying. Clearly the zeitgeist is that someone is lying.
The thing I try to tell people in my own life, over and over again, is that they will never prevent a bad actor from harming them if identifying bad actors requires them to be honest with you. Why would a predator ever tell you the truth about what he intends to do to you? Why would he forewarn you and give you a chance to defend yourself?
Now apply that to politics and culture. You think an illegal immigrant is going to say “I’m invading your country for easy money, then I will outbreed you and take over”? If that’s his plan, then his best chance to complete it is to deny it. If he cops to it, you will take action to stop it.
The worst is when some of them do say exactly what they intend to do, and then bleeding hearts try to somehow deny it. “He doesn’t mean that, and even if he did, he’s just a meaningless outlier”. Yeah, or he was dumb enough to give up the game. Or he knows that leftists will run interference for him.
And those leftists? Yeah, they’re playing dumb, too. They’re excited by the ones who say the quiet part out loud. Leftists get off on the demoralization of rubbing it all in your face.
They lie because they know that they get off easy if they're mistaken for a fool instead of the monster that they are.
Good post. It dovetails with something I’ve noticed a lot watching the likes of Asmongold and Critical Drinker lately: people will adopt impossible standards of evidence if their goal is to avoid recognizing uncomfortable truths. The way these “alternative” critics talk about the culture war, you’d think we’re just dealing with a bunch of accidentally incompetent weirdos and not deliberate Marxist activists. Asmon and Drinker are clearly disaffected former lefties, so they demand notarized confessions before they’re willing to condemn leftist insanity as representative of leftism. Under this standard, there will never be leftist subversion so long as the subversives are sophisticated enough to lie about their intentions.
We used to mock people for being gullible and credulous. We used to understand that the appearance of impropriety is impropriety. That three times is enemy action. That if every mistake points in one direction, then they aren’t mistakes. No longer. Now the masses take leftists at their word and call you crazy for suggesting that people who want to destroy your cultures and nations are probably capable of lying about it, too.
The part that I don't and have never understood at a personal level, is the firm belief that "nobody is that corrupt" or "we know this because authority said it" is thay they have no frame, no version of reality where that was true. They can't answer the question "what would things look like if I was right and you were wrong? How would you tell the difference?"
Damn, despite my post, both of these have been guilty pleasures for me of late. I think I like Asmongold because he is basically the reincarnation of Diogenes. Drinker, as you imply, is a disaffected liberal, and he just wants to go back to the 90s when things where cool.
Oh I get it, and I still watch both. Those two are extremely useful in illustrating to normies just how awful leftist media has become, but neither of them will connect all the dots and declare the awfulness as an inescapable product of leftism specifically. I suspect Asmon keeps it neutral so he can remain friendly with the overwhelmingly leftist streamer community, and I suspect Drinker is just stuck in the 90s.
Asmongold probably smells as bad as Diogenes, but that's it. Calling a milquetoast fencesitter the same as the man who told Alexander the Great to get out of his sun to his face is an insult to Diogenes.
Very interesting. Thanks for the post
Thanks Smith. My choice of LQBT in the church or the Hart-Cellar Act were chosen just because they were topics here earlier today. I feel I could have chosen numerous other examples on any given day. Kirk and Madsen's "After the Ball" versus Jon Stewart's "there is no gay agenda." The libertarian defense of pornography versus Al Goldstein's "The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks." It is all so tiresome.
After the Ball is the book from the 80s that basically lays out how they subverted entertainment with gay stuff right?
Yes. "Experts" say it wasn't really influential. And they're right, but that's because "After the Ball" was not novel; it was just a compilation of what Activists had been plotting since the 50s. There was a broad effort to work LGBTQ into the American mind via mass media (as described in After the Ball) and it worked.
Steal it off the internet and read it. It will feel weird realizing you grew up under intentional propaganda. There was in fact a gay agenda, and everybody knew it in the 80s, but told us its was not real in the 90s. They were lying.
hart-cellar needs to be repealed and the citizenships of anyone who did not meet previous criteria invalidated and removed
an ex-soviet state could do it after the soviet union fell, we can do it too
At least two of them were zionists
Reminds me of the later old testament books when they were trying to rebuild Jerusalem after z Babylon and many enemies and friends tried to stop the walls from being rebuilt. It took a couple tries to finish the job.