Pelican, the structures, roles and behaviours which have arisen to define, propagate, administer and enforce the dominant ideology in our secular humanist state look a lot like the structures that arise in states where the dominant ideology is religious. There is a similar claim to moral authority based on altruistic intent; a similar claim to having some special insight into the human condition; the same interest in ensuring that political, business and civic leaders overtly confirm their commitment to the ideology; the same colonisation of the existing administrative structures and requirement to affirm belief in doctrinal fundamentals as a condition of employment; the same public vilification of those who do not overtly conform; the same promise of personal reward for the ideologically virtuous; the same interest in ensuring conformity generally, while defining some classes as having inherent special status, worthy or otherwise, conferred by their membership of that class rather than their individual value; the list goes on and on.

This shouldn't be surprising, since they are both catering to the same personality types and attempting to fit into the same underlying culture.

Only the details vary.

It seems to me that business self-regulation has been a quid pro quo for willing conformism to some doctrinal demands rather than an example of special treatment. Equal employment opportunity, for example.

Globalisation has provided a cornucopia of cheap consumerism, that is tangible evidence of enhanced prosperity to the masses. Mining has provided a lot of money to be handed around which makes the bourgeoisie happy.

It's a key driver of the social change that has allowed the ideological changes to propagate. If it hadn't happened, there would have been a much smaller increase in female employment, which would have meant fewer women in a position of power and so on. Feminism has only been so influential because of the growth in the workforce enabled by globalism.

Antiseptic

George Orwell covered the same ground with infinitely less words

"Some animals are more equal than others"

Ah yes, but he was a genius.

Antiseptic - Ah yes, but he was a genius.

Unlike a certain f**kwit who needs a thousand times the number of words to say the same thing

Actually, it's not the same thing at all. Orwell was making a rhetorical point about the exercise of power without the constraints of obligation. I was making an observation about the way that secular humanism has come to resemble a religious movement and has thrown up the same types of roles.

I realise you prefer to have your thinking packaged in the simplest possible form, but even Orwell had to write a book to make his point. I'm sure you'd have found it boring.

Perhaps you should simply avoid reading comments that exceed your attention span?

Some people thrive on making simple issues unnecessarily complicated, lawyers, politicians & certain OLO contributors being obvious examples. I guess its just a matter of stringing a lot of words together that makes them feel important. Reminds me of a girl I once knew with the nickname of 'mouth'. Actually she rarely said much & when pressed, her catchline was 'brevity is the soul of wit'