The WOKE ideology can be categorized as a "Utopian Fantasy".
Utopian Fantasies require that human nature change for them to survive more than twenty years (basically, the prime years of their founders).
Rosabeth Moss Kanter studied 91 "utopian communities that existed between 1780 and 1860. Very few of them lasted more than 33 years...however, some of them did.
...Kanter noted these groups' rituals and clear boundaries for membership, as well as the "commitment mechanisms" that utopians utilized: sacrifice, investment, renunciation, communion, mortification and transcendence. She concluded that the more that a utopian community asked of its members, the more cohesive and long-lasting it was. -Wikipedia
I think it is worth pointing out that the durable utopian communities required EQUALITY of sacrifice, investment, renunciation, communion, mortification and transcendence in all of their membership.
The WOKE movement requires those commitment mechanisms but only of certain groups. Other groups are exalted and lionized and not required to wear the sack-cloth and ashes.
Based on the historical data, it seems likely that the WOKE movement will be viewed by future generations as a campy aberration much like praying to crystals, hippies, transcendental meditation, chakras and macrobiotic diets.
That will come to a great shock to the SJWs who sold their souls to join the movement.
Yesterday's work-ticket
You might be asking why I am planting sweet corn after I have posted material suggesting it might not be the best vegetable when the SHTF.
The short answer is "It is what the customer asked for." If my efforts can change people so they think of themselves as successful gardeners, then it is pretty easy for them to change what they plant.
The Lord has blessed you greatly, you're an inspiration! I agree with you on the gardening aspect. I too enjoy planting frivolous crops simply because I enjoy growing them. Cotton and peanuts are actually great row crops for my environment, and it makes me enjoy all of the hard work and effort all the more. Who cares if the chickens and squirrels are the only one's who eat the peanuts? Whole cotton heads are great fire-starters, too!
ReplyDeleteMost people today, myself included, don't think about gardening as sustenance, but rather hobby and/or landscaping-option. For a lot of folks it's about the show, even (as so much of our social media inspired life is). And frankly, for what some of the stuff costs at the grocer.... But the day when people start NEEDING a victory-garden, as did most just a scant 100-years ago, the skills learned and talent developed will be quite useful!
Sorry this one got long.
ReplyDelete"Based on the historical data,"
I'm not super happy with Rep. Tom Barrett, but his opponent's platform (such as it is so far) is just a list of endlessly failed ideas that have been tried over and over again, and never work.
Prices are too high? We'll just require them to be lower!
Landlords don't want to rent properties for cheap? We'll force them!
Housing is expensive? We'll build affordable housing. Which sounds great, until you look at every place that tries "to build affordable housing" instead of "just build lots of market rate houses". Somehow "affordable" housing always ends up incredibly expensive per sq ft.
"Ending homelessness requires more affordable housing, as well as rapid rehousing, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing. "
All the same ideas that failed in California, failed in Colorado, failed in the PNW, failed on the East Coast. But we haven't personally failed at them so better spend billions doing so just so we're sure they won't work.
"Seek diplomatic solutions to global challenges, not more war"
You've cracked it, brilliant. Solved right there. Can't believe no one thought of that one.
"mixed-income housing model that has been pioneered in Montgomery County, MD"
That project is 463 units across 2 buildings at the initial cost of 303 million dollars (probably, given standard government overruns, cost 25% or more above that).
I can't find any detail on unit sizes, but it has a climate action plan, a net zero plan and interior bike parking. At 654k per unit (before the cost overruns of course) for what seem (from images) to mostly be 1 and 2 bedroom apartments of modest size, you're never going to be able to fund the project or scale the system enough because you're taking a massive wash on the non-market rate) units.
You know, one could just build affordable houses (i.e. houses where renting/selling them at market rates were affordable to people), but instead we're going to build luxury solar panel having, bike inside parking having, EV charging having, "meeting space having" mixed use density at 5x (or more) the cost per sq ft of living space of building houses.
For every unit they build like this, they could build 5 times as much non-fancy housing and sell it to people to live in at actually affordable rates and turn a profit (meaning they could keep doing this until people have housing). Instead... it's the same old failed ideas, but this time it's "a new idea".
What is new? The new part here is the convinced the local county to be the bagholder instead of the Feds (and to do this they promised that most of the units will be market rate, enough to support the project on life support, but not enough to make it profitable or scalable).
A total inability to learn from historical data seems almost required these days to be a progressive. No idea has ever been tried sufficiently "correctly", so you can ignore a lengthy list of failures across the nation (or world) and just keep trying.
Meanwhile getting out of the way and letting people who can try to build a life (while helping those who cannot), you know the thing that actually seems to work, is practically the only idea we're not supposed to try again.