Everyone would have come across a permutation of the following cliche statement at least once in their lives - “Be the change you want to see in the world”. This cheesy quote has been practically plastered everywhere, on mugs, on door mats, on inspirational posters, and stenciled on room walls. That being said, my favourite permutation of this quote is attributed to Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, who writes in his book, ‘12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos’, that one should “set his house in perfect order before criticizing the world."
This statement is especially pertinent in today's society where the notion of introspection or self-reflection is noticeably absent. Everyone criticizes everybody else - except himself. As a returning Catholic, I've come to realize the sheer power of something known as an Examination of Conscience - something one undertakes before undergoing the Sacrament of Reconciliation (AKA Confession.) An examination of conscience takes place when a person who wishes to make his confession heartfelt and contrite spends a period of time contemplating upon the sins and wrongs that he or she has done. This, to me, is one of the healthiest (at least mentally & spiritually) exercises I've ever done. Realizing where I am wrong makes me humble, observant, and better able to understand myself.
Unfortunately, hardly anyone examines his or her own conscience these days, and counter to Peterson's rule that one should "set his or her own house in perfect order before criticizing the world" - so many seek to actively or implement a utopian social order or a political vision, with no regard for the state of their own personal lives. It is something about this era we live in that being "revolutionary" is a thing to be lauded; to change the world for the better. Political activism is at an all time high, but how is one able to effectively change the world if what actually needs change is the content of one's own character?
One of the most ardent opponents of the Soviet regime, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, stated succinctly: "We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life."
Solzhenitsyn's statement that too much hope is placed in political and social reforms is piercingly accurate - made no better by the political climate we live in today - a climate where the notion of one striving to "pull himself up by his bootstraps" is a thing to be ridiculed.
Congresswoman and Socialist, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez A.K.A AOC, recently remarked in Congress that the notion of "pulling oneself up by his or her bootstraps" is based on a joke.
AOC: “It’s a physical impossibility to lift yourself up by a bootstrap, by your shoelaces. It’s physically impossible!” pic.twitter.com/JjuT5J2v71
— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) February 6, 2020
To be specific, she said:
"Ms. Hutchinson, I also want to thank you for bringing up the poverty draft, and this idea of a bootstrap. You know this idea and this metaphor of a "bootstrap" started off as a joke? Because it is a physical impossibility to lift yourself up by a bootstrap? By your shoelaces? It's physically impossible. The whole thing is a joke."
There are too many classic responses to AOC's remarks that deserves publicity:
Here's one from Matt Whitlock,
"They say 'time flies when you're having fun.' But who has ever seen time fly? Does it have wings? A pilots license? The whole thing is a joke." https://t.co/fYCWaCAuv9
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) February 6, 2020
..and also one from the great Austrian Economist, Bob Murphy:
Next up: Do you know that no one in human history has ever killed two birds with one stone? https://t.co/No88I8zzvB
— Robert P. Murphy (@BobMurphyEcon) February 7, 2020
Never mind that she clearly doesn't get how idioms work, AOC really does want to throw the notion that you can succeed on your own merits without the need for government assistance out the window.
Why?
Because this is what people like AOC have been indoctrinated to believe. She is simply marching to the beat of one of The Cathedral's many narratives - in this case, the narrative which Michael Malice bases on the premise of the "Social Gospel".
The Evangelical Left (as Malice appropriately calls them) seeks to take the Christian doctrine of the Salvation of the individual and morph it into a social justice concept, expanding "Salvation" to also include collective society at large, not just the individual.
As Michael Malice expands further in a recent interview on the 'Rubin Report' (somewhere around the 10th minute mark):
"Instead of an individual being saved which is the basic premise of Christianity, it is the nation that has to be saved. However, when you have this worldview that a nation's soul can be saved, or the earth's soul can be saved, that means there's no space that is outside your purview. That means whatever someone watches, whatever someone does at home, any aspect of your life is subject to their domination and control, so it is an absolute totalitarian worldview, and they admit it."
This makes sense. If one wishes for the world to be collectively saved through making everyone equal in all facets of life, then absolute dominion over everything one does is absolutely necessary to prevent anyone from obstructing these utopian plans from being put in place.
This obviously means freedoms of all stripes will be eroded - especially freedoms so-called Progressives hold dear such as the freedom of expression and freedom of thought.
Of course, the Evangelical Left today understands that physical coercion isn't going to work (especially after what occurred in the 20th Century with the rise and fall of Communist regimes), hence their foray into the cultural sphere. In its place, we now have The Cathedral and its more insidious and deceptive methods of implementing uniform acceptance of its narrative (which we have already explored in a previous blog post)
It is sad to see individuals sacrifice their own personal identities, and to give up any semblance of striving towards achieving their personal goals, simply for the sake of building a collective utopia for everyone.
I explored the notion of a Utopia in a post I wrote in 2014 where I examine why utopias are impossible to build, and why the desire to implement utopias often usually lead to dystopias instead.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn understood this clearly, having experienced first-hand the horrors of Communism in the Soviet Union where he was sentenced to spend many years in a gulag for criticizing Josef Stalin. Solzhenitsyn was, however, a deeply spiritual man, and his experiences had a profound impact on how he viewed the world. His experiences led him to pen down his thoughts and observations in what would become his magnum opus titled 'The Gulag Archipelago'. The book brought international awareness to the terrible atrocities inflicted by the Soviet regime on its own people, and it's commonly believed that such awareness was one of the many factors that led to the eventual downfall of the Soviet regime, having had so much impact on fellow citizens. Today, the book has become required reading in schools across Russia.
In a sense, Solzhenitsyn helped bring about necessary societal change through a deeply personal act - an act of contemplation and introspection, and then recording such thoughts & observations via writing, before having his work smuggled out for his kinfolk to read. His way of bringing down a murderous regime was done through personal self-examination.
Jordan Peterson writes about this more comprehensively in his book, '12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos'. Here are a couple of excerpts:
"Solzhenitsyn pored over the details of his life, with a fine-toothed comb. He asked himself a second question, and a third. Can I stop making such mistakes, now? Can I repair the damage done by my past failures, now? He learned to watch and to listen. He found people he admired; who were honest, despite everything. He took himself apart, piece by piece, let what was unnecessary and harmful die, and resurrected himself. Then he wrote The Gulag Archipelago, a history of the Soviet prison camp system. It's a forceful, terrible book, written with the overwhelming moral force of unvarnished truth...
... Solzhenitsyn's writing utterly and finally demolished the intellectual credibility of communism, as ideology or society...
... One man's decision to change his life, instead of cursing fate, shook the whole pathological system of communist tyranny to its core. It crumbled entirely, not so many years later, and Solzhenitsyn's courage was not the least of the reasons why."
Introspection isn't necessarily limited to moral matters (though it definitely stems from a moral outlook). It can also be translated to the realm of economics. One who constantly looks for exterior reasons to justify the state of his or her financial despondency will never look inwardly (how to improve him/herself, whether it's necessary to work harder than others in order to gain more profits, or to acquire marketable skills for example) and will always rely on the government to provide for him/her financially or at least to constantly create equitable opportunities for him/her to flourish financially. This state of dependence is responsible for the rise of the kind of political activism that serves no purpose other than to provide one with false promises - and in the event that such promises do materialize - are incredibly short-sighted or short-term ones.
Thomas Sowell wrote about the economic statuses of different migrant communities in the United States of America in the early 20th century in his 1983 book, 'The Economics and Politics of Race'. Sowell argues that the Jewish and East Asian (mostly Chinese) migrants became more prosperous than other migrant groups because many of them focused on working hard for themselves in order to climb out of the poverty bracket they initially found themselves in. On the other hand, the Irish migrant community failed to fare as well on an economic level as most of them were relying too heavily on political activism to climb out of the poverty bracket.
For politicians like AOC and many others who clearly wish to change the world through revolutionary means and who scoff at the idea of one striving to pull himself up by his own bootstraps, I can only say that history has proven time and time again that fruitful and truly lasting change comes from within.
As Fyodor Dostoevsky once wrote, “If you want to overcome the whole world, overcome yourself.”
Post script: This blog post is obviously directed towards able-bodied individuals. I'm not ignorant to the plight of some people (especially those with disabilities or find themselves in extremely difficult situations - whatever they may be), for whom there are still external factors that no amount of introspection can overcome, particularly with regards to their financial or mental well-being.
No comments:
Post a Comment