TheGaggle
Politics • Culture • News
Our community is made up of those who value the freedom of speech, the right to debate and the promise of open, honest conversations.

We don't agree on everything but we never silence our followers and value every opinion on our channel.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
Is the New Moral Consensus Irreversible?

I am posting an article by a British journalist. The article makes some interesting points, but in the end I found it facile, superficial and unconvincing.

There is a type of conservative--I assume the author Ed West is a small "c" conservative--who always wants to throw in the towel and declare the other side victors before the fight has even started. That way you get the best of all words. You receive praise from conservatives because, well, you sound like a conservative. And of course you receive praise from liberals for paying due deference to the winning team. Invitations to TV studios naturally beckon. It was a genre of writing perfected by the late Peregrine Worsthorne.

The author's thesis, in so far as I understand it, is that there once existed a moral consensus that the 1960s shattered. After 50 or so years of social and moral revolution we have more or less settled on a moral consensus, with fierce moral guardians enforcing the new woke norms with the same puritanical zeal that their 1950s predecessors had once applied.

It's a clever conceit, worthy of the late Peregrine Worsthorne. In fact, I am sure Worsthorne had written stuff like this himself over the years. However, I am not sure we have really reached a moral consensus, the enforcement of which will be all that straightforward. You could argue it the other way: It was during the 1960s that a consensus of sorts was forged. Back then, the guardians of society decided that it was silly to ban James Joyce and D.H. Lawrence and the movie "Clockwork Orange." The guardians decided that it was silly to outlaw homosexuality and abortion, that it was absurd to expect nice girls not to have sex before they got married and that it was reprehensible to be a racist. The public wasn't happy about it, but eventually accepted the new moral order.

What's happening today though is beyond what anyone could have imagined to be reasonable back then. Did anyone back then think that we would be forced to accept gay marriage as normal? Did anyone think that everyone would be free to decide what gender he or she is and would have the right to force others to accept it? Did anyone think that it would be reprehensible to object to late-term abortions? Did anyone think that taking down statues of anyone from the past with retrograde views would be acceptable? Did anyone think that children would be taught that whiteness is a debilitating condition? Maybe the guardians of the old pre-1960s order thought so, but their concerns were of course dismissed without too much effort.

So is everything settled now? Is there a new consensus? Are the views of AOC and the knee-taking English footballers the new normal? Maybe so. Countries such as Spain or Ireland, from whom you might have expected resistance to the new mores, are now among the wokest countries in the world. On the other hand, there is pushback against all of this in--of all places--France. No footballers other than those of England and Belgium have taken the knee. There is serious pushback from Russia. There is pushback also from Hungary and Poland--but they are small countries and will probably succumb once serious pressure is applied against them.

There is a wild card though: geopolitics. Within the next few years it will become increasingly apparent that the West is failing to keep up with China, that China is racing ahead in one field after another. China's social, economic and, above all, moral model is very different from that of the West. Will this cause a change in attitude in the West? Will the West suddenly decide: "Hey, maybe white men aren't so bad after all, maybe tearing down the past isn't the best way to build a future, maybe changing genders isn't the best way of ensuring population growth, maybe preoccupying yourself with rectifying past injustices is not the most effective way of reviving manufacturing industry?" I don't know.

What West fails to appreciate that the new moral consensus is one that appeals to very few people. Ultimately, a consensus can only take hold if more people benefit than lose from it.

https://unherd.com/2021/07/the-wests-cultural-revolution-is-over/

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Live Chat
January 12, 2026
Monday Night At The Movies: "Ivan The Terrible Part I" (1944)

Join Gagglers for "Ivan the Terrible Part I"!
The screening starts at 3 p.m. ET sharp.
Share all of your thoughts, comments and criticisms on the Live Chat.

See you at 3 p.m. ET

01:39:15
TG 2049: Close To The Brink Of Nuclear War

George Szamuely talks to Paul Craig Roberts on Trump, Putin, Russia-Ukraine, Venezuela and Iran, and on the growing likelihood that we could soon end up in nuclear war.

01:02:01
January 11, 2026
TG 2048: Is Donald Trump John McCain: Trump Threatens To Seize Greenland

George Szamuely and Peter Lavelle discuss the apparent transmogrification of President Donald Trump into the late John McCain as the president threatens to seize territory that belongs to a NATO ally.

00:53:24
8 hours ago

Bryan Caplan’s argument on immigration is well worth serious consideration precisely because it identifies the true source of most immigration pathologies, rather than mistaking symptoms for causes.

In Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration, Bryan Caplan makes a clean and often neglected distinction: immigration itself is not a fiscal burden. The burden arises only when movement is fused to unconditional access to government transfers. People who move in order to work are not “funded” by society; they fund themselves by producing goods and services others voluntarily buy. Treating labor as a cost rather than a source of value is a category error.

Caplan’s reframing is powerful because it treats immigration as labor arbitrage rather than charity. Allowing people to move from low-productivity environments to high-productivity ones increases total output, lowers prices, deepens specialization, and raises living standards. These gains are not hypothetical; they are identical to ...

20 hours ago

JUST IN - Trump's Arctic commissioner, Thomas Dans, says Trump's desire to annex Greenland will not be thwarted, action could come within "weeks or months."

Read here: https://www.disclose.tv/id/91dekeunkb/

@disclosetv

January 21, 2023
More Leftie Than Thou
"Jacobin" Magazine Celebrates A Strike Against Ol' Blue Eyes

Here at "The Gaggle" we have very little time for the "more Leftie than thou" school of thought--that's the approach to life according to which the only thing that matters is whether you take the right position on every issue under the sun from Abortion to Zelensky. No one in the world meets the exacting standards of this school of thought; any Leftie leader anywhere is always selling out to the bankers and the capitalists. The perfect exemplar of this is the unreadable Jacobin magazine. 

The other day I came across this article from 2021. It's a celebration of trade union power. And not simply trade union power, but the use of trade union power to secure political goals. Of course (and this is always the case with the "more Leftie than thou" crowd), this glorious, never-to-be-forgotten moment on the history of organized labor took place many years ago--in the summer of 1974 to be exact. Yes, almost half a century has gone by since that thrilling moment when the working-class movement of Australia mobilized and prepared to seize the means of production, distribution and exchange. 

Well, not quite. Organized labor went into action against...Ol' Blue Eyes, the Chairman of the Board, the Voice; yes, Frank Sinatra. Why? What had Sinatra done? Sinatra was certainly very rich, and he owned a variety of properties and businesses. But if the Australian trade union movement were, understandably, searching for the bright, incandescent spark that would finally awaken the working class from its slumber there were surely richer, greedier, more dishonest, more decadent, above all more Australian individuals it could have discovered. Australia was never short of them. Rupert Murdoch immediately springs to mind. Why Sinatra?

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals