The Grip of Culture: The Social Psychology of Climate Catastrophism

From Climate Etc.

by Andy West

My book ‘The Grip of Culture’, subtitled ‘The social psychology of climate change catastrophism’, is now published.

“Climate change catastrophism is a cultural disease haunting Western society.  Andy West’s excellent study of this problem explains the different drivers of this disease. It is an important contribution to a debate where reason must prevail.” – Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent

You can find it in paperback on Amazon US, UK and Germany, plus it is also available as a FREE pdf from my publisher, the GWPF, see here.

The rear-cover synopsis reads:

“Attempts to explain attitudes to climate change, and the refusal of large parts of society to accept the idea of an imminent catastrophe, have largely foundered. This ground breaking book overturns the existing literature, developing a powerful new model of public attitudes based on the interaction of traditional religion and a new culture – a new faith – of climate catastrophism, which is instinctively accepted or rejected. At its centre is a series of measurements of public opinion, culled from major international polls, which make a strong case that society is now in the grip of a major new religion. That case is made still more powerful because the model is able to predict real-world outcomes, such as the deployment of renewables and the prevalence of climate protest groups in different countries.

The book ends with a warning. Cultures can bind societies together and cause great civilisations to grow and prosper. But they can also lead them to disaster. If society is truly in the grip of a new cultural entity, we should be very concerned.”

See this review by Andrew Montford:

“I HAVE been working in climate and energy for nearly 15 years, and it’s fair to say that it’s not often I find something that makes me radically change the way I look at the domain. But a new book, by Andy A West, has done just that.”

My book overlaps with some social aspects explored in Judith’s book, including the catastrophe narrative, the social nature of consensuses, and the highly tangled territory where group biases interact with, and damage, the enterprise of science. However, regarding the social aspects generally I see my book as exposing the ultimate root cause of the biases and the deep social need for arbitrary consensus. It does not explore much detail about what specific institutions and efforts are undermined by which biased advocate individuals or organisations, and indeed it does not delve into climate science or the IPCC procedures at all (see the note at the end of this post). The main presence of climate catastrophism is outside of science, and its culture can be characterised and measured from its footprint in global publics (inclusive of public authorities). However, climate catastrophism works to undermine all institutions that provide ‘rationality at social scale’, including democracy, the law (chapter 14), and science (which is considered generically).

A short description of each chapter follows:

  1. Introduction

The opening paragraph states:

“This book is about the social psychology associated with climate change, which can be characterized and measured across national publics without reference to the physical climate system, its future state, or how it responds to human emissions of greenhouse gases. This is the case because the social psychology has emergent characteristics of its own, which are unaffected by mainstream views on the science of the ocean-atmosphere system… …or indeed the arguments of the small minority of sceptical scientists.”

  1. A potent new cultural entity in our society

The observed social behaviours associated with the issue of climate change (a couple of dozen are listed), circumstantially point to a ‘cultural entity’ – shorthand: ‘a culture’ – dominating the public domain with respect to this issue. Cultural entities include religions and secular ideologies – an appropriate label for this one is ‘climate catastrophism’. The chapter points out that we should be able to apply 150 years of accumulated knowledge on how cultures work, to better understand this new one. However, this obvious angle has not been pursued, apparently because the relevant social science disciplines wrongly deem  that certain global catastrophe (absent dramatic action) to be incontrovertible hard science. This chapter is based on the first half of my 2015 Climate Etc post ‘Climate culture’.

  1. Cultural entities: deep roots and key features

This chapter covers the origin of cultural entities in the evolutionary process of cultural group selection, and describes their features, including: emotive commitment to cultures and emotive hot-buttons, the cultural use and abuse of children, (irrational) cultural consensuses, cultural narrative (which is always false, and features a population of variants), cultural policing, demonisation and the pressure of fear, cultural rejection (innate scepticism), and more. The chapter also covers features of cultures that are more than the sum of their parts, and which imbue them with an agenda of their own.

  1. Child prophets and proselytisers

This chapter examines the cultural role of children as prophets and mass proselytisers. The approach is based on distinguishing these roles from reality-based (i.e. not cultural) scenarios. A detailed comparison is drawn between the pitches to authority of two girl prophets – Greta Thunberg and Nonqawuse – as well as a reality-based pitch from Malala Yousafza. A similar comparison is drawn between two child movements – the Alabama children’s crusade of 1963, and the current School Strikes for Climate campaign.

The vulnerability of children to aggressively promoted cultural ‘templates’, and climate catastrophism’s psychological abuse of children, are also covered. The chapter essentially consists of my 2019 Climate Etc post ‘Child prophets and proselytisers’.

  1. The Catastrophe Narrative

The ‘carrier’ of a cultural entity, its DNA so to speak, is an emotive cultural narrative that consists of a main ‘umbrella’ theme, under which sits a population of narrative variants linked to the theme. This chapter examines the specific cultural narrative of ‘imminent global climate catastrophe’, as propagated by a wide array of authority sources from presidents and prime ministers on downwards, and including examples of its most common memetic variants along with the details of how these work. The chapter is based on my 2018 Climate Etc post ‘The catastrophe narrative’.

The catastrophe narrative is ubiquitous in the public domain and propagated by virtually all authority sources; a companion file lists a couple of hundred examples of authority figures pushing the catastrophe narrative, categorized by variant type and with a clickable index of quotees.

  1. Demonisation and denialism

This chapter examines the mis-framed concept of ‘denialism’, which allows modern secular cultures (especially climate catastrophism) to demonise dissenters en-masse, yet without this being perceived as demonisation. The widespread use of the emotive and pejorative concept of denialism is in part due to its legitimisation by a scientific paper, which has given the concept a veneer of respectability. In this chapter I use that paper as a vehicle to expose the flawed framing of the term denialism. The chapter is based on my 2016 Climate Etc post ‘The Denialism Frame’, with significant additions.

  1. Innate scepticism

This chapter examines the critical mechanism of ‘innate scepticism’, an instinctive reaction against cultural invasion (or local cultural overreach). This is not rational scepticism (!) and may be apt or inapt. The bulk attitudes to climate change of publics across the globe cannot be adequately explained without taking this mechanism into account. Innate scepticism can be thought of as ‘cultural disbelief’, but is not merely the mirror image or opposite of cultural belief; it is semi-independent and possesses its own characteristics. The chapter is based on my 2017 Climate Etc post ‘Innate Skepticism’, with significant additions.

  1. Measuring climate catastrophism

This chapter moves from characterising cultural entities generally and climate catastrophism in particular, to measuring the presence of the latter as revealed by the attitudes to climate change of publics across the globe (from the polling of 64 nations). Leveraging the fact that cultures interact allows international attitudes that are otherwise incomprehensible to be easily understood. Plotting them against a scale of national religiosity confirms the straightforward categorical patterns that are expected from cultural causation. The patterns consist of a particular set of linear series (no complex models or even multi-variate analysis are required); these are generated from a range of independent sources yet they all fit into the same single framework. All the original charts, data and sources are available in a companion Excel file (the ‘Excel-Ref’).

  1. The cultural measurements explained

This chapter explains in detail why we expect the categorical patterns found in chapter 8, which confirm that a cultural entity dominates the climate change domain. At the top level, this is because the attitudes of international (non-US) publics reflect their cultural identity. In turn, only two identity components really matter here: the level of commitment to climate catastrophism, and the level of commitment to religious faith (of whatever brand). However, cultural rejection is also evident, which is not simply the opposite of belief; hence it is critical to take into account the characteristics of this ‘innate scepticism’.

Additionally, the validity of the Chapter 8 measurement is provided through a parallel example, which probes a different domain in the same manner, yet one that is inarguably cultural: the domain of religion. As expected, this produces the same type of patterns.

  1. The full model, a dismal failure, and ‘what if?’

The measurements above are sufficient to develop a basic cultural framework, but this chapter extends that framework by considering more response types and to a much wider set of survey questions than Chapter 8 employs. Although some classes of public response to questions about climate change are non-linear with national religiosity, even these remain predictable in the sense that they always occupy an ‘envelope’ between two linear trends. Hence in principle, and for measurements at the national level, the responses to all international (non-US) survey questions can be predicted via this fuller framework,* from knowing national religiosity alone, and with the linear series having predictor values that surpass by far the existing literature. (Latterly, the literature tends to evaluate groups of social predictors rather than single ones, in an attempt to increase predictive power). All data/sources are in the Excel-Ref.

This chapter also examines the reasons why the large and long-standing social predictor literature for attitudes to climate change, has completely failed to find the above outstanding predictor, and outlines the severely myopic way in which the literature perceives the nature of the domain it is attempting to measure, while presenting some results from representative papers.

* From 2015 onwards, and notwithstanding a modest reduction in average predictor values when Covid appears.

  1. The USA: same rules, unique factors

The situation is more complex in the US than in all other nations, because there are four cultures that matter. In addition to climate catastrophism and religion, the huge public polarization between Dem/Libs and Rep/Cons – on a whole raft of issues and inclusive of climate change – means that these two political tribes behave as additional cultures. This chapter demonstrates that nevertheless the same cultural rules apply, and maps the Rest-of-World (RoW) framework to the US scenario, which gives further insight on the latter. In agreement with the findings of social psychologist Dan Kahan, attitudes to climate change in the US are still about cultural identity, but not as he suggests owed only tribal political identity, instead as owed to all four cultures, two of which (climate catastrophism and religion) dominate the RoW picture. All data/sources are in the Excel-Ref.

  1. Climate catastrophism and policy: renewables

Having verified and indeed measured the presence of climate catastrophism, we can use the framework developed in chapters 8 – 10 to predict real-world outcomes, such as policy implementation related to climate change and Net-Zero. This chapter demonstrates that the commitment to renewables (wind-turbines and solar) across nations, is not owed to the climate or climate exposure of nations, or to science or technology or even to rationality, but to cultural motivation. The analysis of renewables commitment is executed step by step and supported by charts at each step; briefly, the end step is shown to be approximately same for the commitment to electric vehicles across nations. All data/sources are in the Excel-Ref. This chapter is based on my 2020 Climate Etc post ‘Cultural motivations for wind and solar deployment’.

  1. Climate catastrophism and society: activism

In addition to the policy prediction above, this chapter shows how the cultural framework can accurately predict the level of climate activism across nations. This is demonstrated both for Extinction Rebellion groups and the Childrens’ Strikes for Climate movement. It is further demonstrated that publics who are reacting culturally to the issue of climate change, cannot be educated with further information in order to rectify this undesirable situation. This is because publics also view all information on climate change as cultural in itself, and so will accept it or reject it on that basis, no matter what the content actually is.

  1. The characteristics revisited

This chapter further examines the list of social behaviours first introduced in Chapter 2, in light of all that has been learned from the rest of the book. It then focuses on how a burgeoning new cultural entity will undermine (prior) law, and even the moral foundations that the law and much else within society are built upon. A generic list of ways in which this occurs is assembled, and real-world examples are shown from the climate change domain that fulfil all of this list. This chapter is an expansion of a section in my 2015 Climate Etc post ‘Climate culture’.

  1. Historical comparisons and social impacts

This chapter describes some particulars of various historic cultural entities, especially with respect to their adverse impacts upon society. While strong caveats regarding historic comparisons with climate catastrophism (or other modern cultures) are emphasised, we can nevertheless learn from these, and for obvious reasons negative impacts are the issue that we most need to be alert to. The chapter also covers some thoughts about how much further the grip of climate catastrophism might extend and tighten, additionally and briefly how, if possible, the culture might be tamed.


Apart from examining, in Chapter 5, some catastrophe narrative variants that are propagated by a small minority of scientists, this book does not delve into the disputes and positions of scientists about climate change, whether mainstream, sceptical, or luke-warmer. All the attitudes directly measured are public ones, as captured by mainstream pollsters and bodies such as the EU and the UN. Public authorities are characterised by their very many catastrophe narrative quotes (Chapter 5), and are effectively measured by proxy through the impact of their policies across nations (Chapter 12). Yet this likewise does not imply anything particular about the attitudes of climate scientists. Having said this, the gold-standard for a secondary confirmation that the catastrophe narrative is cultural, which we can see is the case from both textual analysis and public attitude measurements, is that it also contradicts mainstream climate science (as well as sceptical science).

Note 2:

Readers will be relieved to note that my first-rate and diligent editor, Andrew Montford, has enormously improved the readability of my text, including those chapters that are based on prior guest posts here. However, note that this is necessarily still an academic work, rather than having a popular science format.

Twitter:  follow Andy at @AndyWest_tweets

More on catastrophic predictions can be found at here.

5 11 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 16, 2023 12:17 am

We’re in a culture war, like it or not.

“”Eco-protester who sabotaged George Osborne’s wedding is a hypocrite ex- librarian who jetted off to Thailand months after declaring a ‘climate emergency’ in Somerset “”

Reply to  strativarius
July 16, 2023 6:47 am
Reply to  strativarius
July 17, 2023 6:03 am

The woman who attacked George Osborne’s wedding has an IQ smaller than her shoe size:

Notice how she is constitutionally unable to understand fundamental logic and relies instead on emotion.

July 16, 2023 12:31 am

Good stuff Andy, look forward to reading it!

Stephen Wilde
July 16, 2023 12:37 am

Perhaps too much complication there.
Would once have just been labelled as mass hysteria.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 16, 2023 1:40 am

I prefer mass delusion – very hard to make plans to, eg, demonstrate along with conniving Police if you are “hysterical”.

Steve Case
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 16, 2023 1:55 am

The “Mayor’s office scene from “Ghost Busters” illustrates your point perfectly.

I’d post a link, but I’m on an IPad out in the woods.

July 16, 2023 1:48 am

“Climate Change™” cultism is a psychosis… a delusional mental disease.

Trouble is, psychologists can’t fix it, because most of them are already there.

Peta of Newark
July 16, 2023 2:01 am

One of the things about mentally disordered children, girls esp, is that an incredible ‘artistic streak/talent‘ reveals itself
They are amazing at making up stories and telling them.
Not insanely outlandish stories either. Simply present a young autistic girl with a few soft/cuddly toys and before you know, she’ll have constructed an elaborate soap-opera story around them – they’ll all have names then we’ll hear about who’s going out with who, who’s making a baby, who despite appearances is a baby, who is a lovable rogue, what food likes/dislikes they all have etc etc.
And that story will be told with absolute conviction (autistics simply don’t see the point of mendacity = ‘lying is stupid‘ they’ll tell you) and with perfect recall of what happened previously in the saga of the toys. Even months previously.
The same with real-life conversations you have with them – the pair of you might be having an interesting craic about anything but get interrupted – by other friends, by parents, by mealtime or whatever. Yet months later something might jog either of your memories and it’s possible to pick that thread up seamlessly – word for word, whose turn it was to say something.
The mentally disordered female is nothing less than consistent and disarmingly honest in all matters

So, /preamble
A notable exception on the little list was/is Joan of Arc = stirred things up a bit with her visions & prophecies so examine those 3
Greta: Generally reckoned to be so called ‘autistic’ and if anyone has nay real cojones, they’ll assert that that condition is occasioned by an Iron deficiency in the pregnant mother allied to Vitamin B deficiency. The (apparent) Iron shortage may actually be a shortage of Copper.
Some of us would assert that that is ‘starvation

Joan of Arc: Generally reckoned that she was poisoned by Ergot = she was hallucinating while under influence of a fungal disease that affects Wheat in particular.
But Ergot is not difficult to see or spot and diagnose so, why was she eating food that was patently/obviously mouldy, bad and rotten? Was there nothing else?
Some of us would assert that that is ‘starvation

Nonqawuse: What was this ‘Lung Disease’ that the cattle were getting at the time?
Having been a livestock farmer, I am entirely cognisant of an affliction that young stock can get = generally ‘diagnosed’ as Pneumonia
There is no particular or definite cause for this but generally reckoned to be a viral infection that ‘lets in’ any number of bacterial infections which irreparably damage the lungs.
But, (political correctness silences veterinarians called to treat the disease) it’s a combination of poor management around birth (esp. lack of Colostrum within 6 hours) allied to cold damp draughty conditions for the young animals, ‘poor ventilation’ for housed animals and Crap or Insufficient Food
Many animals do survive but as they rapidly grow and get larger, their damaged lungs simply cannot capture enough Oxygen and the affected animal will die of a heart attack before 18 months old

Back to Nonqawuse – did she endure a similar existence to Joan of Arc?
Was Nonqawuse’s normal (animal rich) diet interrupted by the cattle disese and thus she was forced into eating mouldy grain?
Because bang goes her Vitamin B supply just for starters and The Most Important Function of the B Vitamins is to hold your entire nervous system together……

Try to wrap it up:
If the kids were starving and being forced into eating low-nutrient and mouldy food – how do we imagine The Adults were faring = What were they eating and how was that affecting their ‘mental stability’
Considering the impressive ‘nag factor’ that kids have and how us humans regard them anyway, wouldn’t the kids have been getting the better quality food out of what was available?

You know now what I’m saying, not for the first time either:
We are in midst of Mass Starvation here

Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 16, 2023 8:37 am

Peta, my feet go numb during the night.
Is this a B12 deficiency, or should I stop wearing my ski boots to bed?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Mr.
July 16, 2023 9:48 am

Mr. If two ski boots are not doing the job, try wearing a larger pair over the first pair. On the vitamin C principle that if a little is good a lot is better.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Mr.
July 16, 2023 3:21 pm

Well, B12 didn’t clear it up, so it must be the ski boots.
I don’t know why I never made the connection.

As far as Nongqawuse and the Xhosa cattle, the parallel with the current fossil fuel pogrom is scary.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Mr.
July 16, 2023 6:38 pm

Try unbuckling them.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 16, 2023 7:53 pm

WRT Ergot poisoning.

There’s an interesting story about “St. Anthony’s Fire” afflicting an entire French village in 1951. It seems the state had, at some point, co-opted the grain delivery rights in France to insure that areas of the country that suffered a crop failure would not starve. Millers could not select their own suppliers. And bakers did not know who had milled their quotas of grain. With the sources of tainted wheat and rye bread untraceable, the French state found it easy to cover up the chaos they caused by constraining proper market mechanisms.

An area in southern France near Avignon consumed rye bread that was later determined to have been tainted with ergot fungus. In the village of Pont-Saint-Esprit seven died, but the “mass delusions” of the village’s afflicted survivors – documented by the doctors and hospitals – is quite remarkable.


Chilling as the effects of the ergot poisoning were, the temptation and ease of state functionaries to cover up a mistake is all the more troubling – as when CDC does not release Covid vaccine adverse event records corrollated with their batch numbers. Interestingly, it now appears “bad batches” may account for concentrations of individuals who suffered severe allergic symptoms.

James Snook
July 16, 2023 4:18 am

Greta, according to her parents, has been formally diagnosed with Asperger’s and she is certainly a single issue obsessive.

Whether the cause was dietary or genetic isn’t really important now because she has caused untold damage, including extreme stress in the young and economically, via the knee jerk actions of gullible politicians worldwide.

The growth of the Greta cult was the result of manipulation by extreme greens:

Dave Andrews
Reply to  James Snook
July 16, 2023 7:18 am

I thought it was to make lots of money by people who professed to be greens but were in reality just interested in their own wealth creation, such as Dale Vince in the UK.

James Snook
Reply to  Dave Andrews
July 16, 2023 8:51 am

That too!

July 16, 2023 8:41 am

Thank you Mr.May…This could be a great article to start one of those difficult/impossible conversations with family and friends.
Did download you book and look forward to reading it…Your preface is terrific.

Rich Davis
July 16, 2023 11:13 am

If society is truly in the grip of a new cultural entity, we should be very concerned.

I am very concerned. Cultural entity is Andy West’s preferred term to generalize belief systems that define doctrine that is not adequately supported by evidence, incorporating both theistic cults and atheistic ones. Many of us just call the climate catastrophism cult a religion or a godless religion.

The relevant point is that there are strongly-held beliefs that are impervious to reasoned argument. The cultists have a mental model which they are convinced is true. All fact, opinion, data, or hypothesis will be filtered based on its compatibility with the preconceived notion. (Confirmation bias).

For example, quasi-cyclical warm and cold periods must be recast as regional events and dismissed with hockey stick graphs.

I am certain that society is truly in the grip of a new secular religion which demands actions disastrous to human flourishing. It is a cult (belief system) impervious to reason and contrary evidence.

In the same way that young earth creationists explain away stratigraphic evidence of earth being far more ancient, the climate cultist theorizes regional warm and cool periods that contradict the straightforward interpretation of the evidence. No matter how strong or diverse the evidence of natural warming and cooling, no evidence is accepted if it calls dogma into question.

If we understand this reality, but we don’t want to see society follow the new cult to its logical conclusion of death and devastation, what should we be doing to be more effective?

I despair of changing hearts and minds of the true believers. My only hope is that just as in the 1950s a great many lukewarm-at-best Christians went through the ritualistic motions of pretending to be faithful in order to maintain social acceptability, so today there are probably only a minority of true believers in the climate cult.

If that is correct, it may seem to undercut my claim that science and facts alone can’t prevail. In fact I agree that those individuals could potentially be persuaded on science IF they were to care more about the truth than they do about their social acceptability. If they were to take an interest in the scientific evidence, and they had adequate basic science background to form an opinion, they might also become “secret heretics”.

My position that reason and scientific evidence alone won’t work is still viable because in reality very few people care about truth for the sake of truth, and many lack sufficient basic science education to understand the evidence. On the other hand, they mostly all care very deeply about being socially accepted and the economic consequences of not being acceptable.

This is why we need emotional appeals that can reach the people who are just going along with the new religion so as to avoid being cancelled. If enough of the lukewarm fear the dire consequences of the climate cultists’ prescriptions, they will feel safe in rejecting their extremism. Subsequent some of them may care to learn the true facts and we should have a rigorous explanation ready for them. But sadly, most will never care.

We need them to vote for politicians who reject the climate emergency narrative. We don’t need them to hold an opinion about the value of ECS or the main drivers of natural climate change.

In fact, as long as they agree that adapting to climate change is better than destroying modern society attempting in vain to mitigate climate change, we can still count in our coalition those who think man-caused climate change is causing serious problems. We do not require scientific consensus on complex topics to reach policy consensus that there is no climate emergency that can be solved by a NetZero program.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 16, 2023 11:49 am

“The relevant point is that there are strongly-held beliefs that are impervious to reasoned argument. The cultists have a mental model which they are convinced is true. All fact, opinion, data, or hypothesis will be filtered based on its compatibility with the preconceived notion. (Confirmation bias).”

That’s a pretty good short version of what we are up against.

Great comments, Rich!

July 16, 2023 11:43 am

In the outline of the book, what is not mentioned is what happens when the belief system fails leading to real hardship. How do those whose jobs are gone and who cannot afford to heat in winter react? My guess is fracturing of the society between the haves and have-nots.

Since the failure of the Covid policies, a rather large segment of society has lost faith in authority (eg, substantial decrease in uptake of childhood vaccines). Another segment is desperately clinging to the opportunity to get the next “booster”. In between is a large block that are quietly avoiding rocking the boat, reluctant to accept any more vaccines, but still generally supportive of government policy.

July 16, 2023 12:47 pm

The way to controlling the culture is through propaganda.

An excellent resource for this is:
The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Cooking Data for Aspiring Propagandists
Definitely worth reading.

Robert A. Taylor
Reply to  Yirgach
July 18, 2023 5:08 pm

Thanks. Read it. Very good. Everything supported with easy to understand graphics and real data.

July 16, 2023 12:59 pm

I’ve started your book
It is right-wing and atheist; it is far from my viewpoint. A hard read, therefore, for me.

Think you discount the possibility that a “fairy tale” may be true because the One who defines truth does not wish to force obedience through mere logic, rather than love.

But your book is well reasoned so far, three chapters in.
You define your terms clearly and state what your evidence will be and your tests.
My experience has told me that it takes 50 pages, well-read, to have a valid opinion about any book.

Done that. It looks good.
I look forward to finishing it. So far, so good.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MCourtney
July 16, 2023 6:17 pm

I agree with you that it is atheistic (I’d go further and characterize it as unreasonably antagonistic to faith). That religious belief depending on faith is unprovable does not follow logically to the claim that all cultural narratives must be false in order to ‘work’. This particular bias really poisons the book for me, and I doubt that I’ll bother with slogging much further with it.

I am curious though, in what specifics do you consider it ‘right wing’?

Reply to  Rich Davis
July 17, 2023 2:01 pm

Three examples he gives in section 3.3.3 assume right-wing perspectives:
1) That gender is biologically determined and not cultural or psychological.
2) A cartoon description of Critical Race Thepry to be torn down as a strawman.
3) The assumptiion that moral debts can not be inherited (without questioning whether property can).
It’s not an open-minded book, so far.
But it is logical and (so far) well-reasoned.

July 16, 2023 3:15 pm

I’m sure this is an important paper but it is a struggle to grasp. Like all important papers, scientific/academic or otherwise it needs a translation. I’m not saying line by line or paragraph by paragraph. The author has an idea to communicate that’s good but what is better is for the average guy to understand this. Give us the big picture in everyday language, we don’t need or require all the details.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights