Some words of both wisdom and common sense.
Religion has so much to answer and be responsible for.
Little of it for the common good.

I wouldn't describe the Woke left as religious. Stupid & idiotic yes but not religious !

Stupid & idiotic is a very apt two word description of Orange Jesus who does not even a teensy-weensy religious molecule in his bone spurs. And yet he has widespread support from millions of so called conservative Christian true believers who even pretend that he is their cultic "god's vehicle for re-Christianizing Amerika.

What an identitarian article!

https://www.facebook.com/reel/3123322074506743
Daffy Duck,
Would you be supportive of that ? If yes then you're also supportive of what's happening to Australia ! If yes then you must also acknowledge that it is natural for Australians to work on preventing it !

religion must be understood in psycho-physiological terms, in factual terms, real, actual, living, human terms. that is how to tell the difference between true teachers, prophets and practitioners as distinct from true believers.
What is the quality of their existence? What do they do?
If you see people practicing some religious path and they look happy, and they are healthy, and they are sane, and they are also intelligent or capable of practicing positive discriminate intelligence, and their experience is real and also extraordinary, then naturally they are attractive and there is value in listening to them. They must be doing something appropriate at some level if they are in such a god state.

But if you see a group pf crazy fanatical people, who call themselves true believers but who have no clarity, no humanity, no love, no ability to inspect and transcend themselves, then you can know that, whatever they are doing, they are not practicing anything more profound that mechanically mumbling the usual belief in the consoling myth of Jesus.

Almost everybody does this but it is especially the case with the millions of true believers in the Orange Jesus.

I second Daffy Duck.

Interesting article. I'm not sure of the writers perspective. It's interesting that The Spectator didn't publish the authors name.

Perhaps a key to the philosophy of the author is the line "it is the consequence of importing identitarian systems into a civilisation that has forgotten why it rejected them in the first place".

Obviously the author is anti-left and anti-identitarian (or anti-ethnicity), sounds like this is firmly in Liberal party territory.

Sadly the Liberal's seem to have been doubling down on blindness. But I liked the bit about "a society that refuses to defend the ... conditions of its own existence does not remain ...".

people practicing some religious path and they look happy, and they are healthy, and they are sane
Daffy Duck,
In a period of absolute madness who decides what's sane ? Someone with three or more genders ? Or perhaps someone son educated that their only way to get through life is by being utterly delusional ? Pentecostals dancing with Rattlesnakes come to mind.

The threat we refuse to name is in fact the same that keeps telling us to let the "experts' deal with the problems. The irony of it ! Considering that it's always the "experts" who run the show that produces nothing but problems !
Look at Immigration, run by experts. Economy, tun by experts. Health, run by experts. Law & order, run by experts. Education. run by experts & so on & on & on !
Pauline Hanson's party is presently the only outfit that can offer people who know rather than perpetual "experts".
Merit must replace DEI if this society has even the slightest desire to survive. I believe the conservative mentality is the only way forward as none, literally none of the idealistic Leftist/Woke alternatives bureaucrats have & are demonstrating. Entrenched merit-devoid nepotism within our Peter principal authorities is running this Nation into the ground. Help put a stop to this appalling mess at the next election. Please offer opinions regarding the Peter principle in Australian bureaucracy ! Natural attrition would be the most fair way to go in my opinion ! Followed by Flat Tax.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23780#401026

Indyvidual on Experts vs Merit, conservativism vs idealistic Leftist/Woke, Peter principle, DEI, Bureacrats, Nepotism, Pauline Hanson.

Answer-

The Peter Principle says that people will be promoted to their level of incompetance. But I would argue that Marxist/ Leftist/ Wokeist/ Academic/ Abstractionist/ Idealist loyalist's are incompetant to be real world managers (or even workers) because they don't live in the real world, and the higher they reach in academia may imply a greater mismatch, especially in the current era. So the Peter Principle would seem to be a step up from what we have now, as it implies that the managers were at least competent at a lower level.

Bob Whittacker said that he was told year 13 that "Marxism was a system of farmers and factory workers all working together by an enlightened system created by communist academics" he said he laughed at this blatant power grab. Aristotle argued with Plato's idea of abstract academic knowledge in his Nicomachean Ethics saying that truth was based on experience not abstraction. In the same way business argues with the academic universities. In modern times the academy dominates the process of specialization, then we wonder why there is scarcity and incompetence.

I think that is what Indyvidual is objecting to when he talks about "experts" and "merit"- academic tyrannical "experts" in abstraction not reality verses those with experiential "merit". The irony of these academic experts is that they seek to disarm the population to consolidate their power, they buy their power with the populations slavery, in the name of freedom. An armed population cannot be enslaved.

Therefore Marxism isn't about freedom or equality, but slavery by the technocrats that don't want to test their ideas from reality. Marxist's try to destroy the west in the name of equality, but this will not free other cultures, Marxism wants to destroy all cultures, it is an invasive force, that wants to capture all territories in abstract Marxist Managerialism Tyranny, as James Burnham said, and use the "power of scarcity" to maintain it's power. Capitalism otoh uses the "power of excess" to motivate people.

There seems to be some similarities between Marxism and Machiavelli's Tyrannical Asian Rotating Officials Model of Sovereignty as compared to the European Catholic Subsidiarity Aristocratic Model of Sovereignty. Asian Confucianism seems to be closer to the less tyrannical European Aristocratic Model than the Asian one.

1. Equality, 2. Fraternity, 3. Liberty the call of the French Revolution has become DEI (DIE) Diversity, Equality, Inclusivity, and is the bait and switch of the Marxist power elites such as Trotsky, Stalin, Lenin, Engels, Luxemburg, Gramsci, many others. Dostoevsky, Solzenitzyn, Burnham, Mitrokin, Bezmenov, and others have warned about the subtle dangers of Marxist propaganda and tactics.

1. Equality- Equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome, or is there some benefit in aristocracy, as a specialist training ground of cultural leadership, a pillar against the storm. All regimes reward loyalty and punish disloyalty, perhaps some are less loyal to experiential subjective cultural truth than others. At any rate equality seems to be the Marxist instantiation of the concept.

2. Fraternity- How do Marxist's instantiate fraternity?

3. Liberty- In Western Marxism freedom tends to be instantiated in nihilistic terms to deconstruct Traditionalism and to destabilize. John Stewart Mill's nihilistic concept "free so long as your freedom doesn't restrict the freedom of others" seems to be quoted often by Woke/ Liberal/ Left/ Marxist/ Socialists as opposed to Aristotle's concept of of freedom by virtuous principles. Dostoevsky himself points to proto-Marxist's as nihilistic. Others see Marxist's as creating scarcity, nihilism, poverty, meaninglessness, hopelessness.

In Plato's Republic, Socrates encourages 1. questioning of the current state of affairs, (essentially deconstructing by questioning the state- Socrates was ridiculed by some conservatives perhaps for always asking 'why', like a four year old) and 2. that philosophers should become rulers or rulers should become philosophers (academic philosophers shouldn't become rulers as they are grounded in abstraction and rulers need to live in the real world).

Some disagreed with Socrates and said you can destroy anything by asking enough questions, because it's harder to create, but life is better than death, so leaders should try to create rather than destroy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyceum_(classical)

Orwell's 1984 according to Jordan Peterson says that the point of totalitarianism is to deny experiential truth, 4 is 5, and to re-educate and kill any deniers.

Where does this happen in our world? What are you not allowed to say? Why aren't we allowed to say it?

I disagree with Indyvidual, “natural attrition” is too slow, try to be humane but firm, we can't allow academic zealots to lead us into darkness.

As for the flat tax, it would help to repair innovation and entrepreneurial acumen and create excess rather than scarcity. Reducing red tape would be useful here too. Too much caution creates scarcity, too little caution can also be dangerous, but the excess can be worth it. Internal free trade can create freedom with strong borders.