Mission Protocol

Business is the most important way in which human beings cooperate. In his Philosophical Letters, Voltaire explained to his French compatriots how the British had achieved religious toleration by focusing on business:

Go into the London Stock Exchange – a more respectable place than many a court – and you will see representatives from all nations gathered together for the utility of men. Here Jew, Mohammedan and Christian deal with each other as though they were all of the same faith, and only apply the word infidel to people who go bankrupt. Here the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist and the Anglican accepts a promise from the Quaker. On leaving these peaceful and free assemblies some go to the Synagogue and others for a drink, this one goes to be baptized in a great bath in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that one has his son’s foreskin cut and has some Hebrew words he doesn’t understand mumbled over the child, others go to heir church and await the inspiration of God with their hats on, and everybody is happy.

What Voltaire understood is that if diverse people are to cooperate they must focus on their common interest and leave other (important) predilections like religion at home. Unfortunately, the woke movement is bringing religion back into business (and every other aspect of life). The religions have changed but Voltaire would not have been surprised at the consequences, a break down of cooperation and amity. That’s why I am very pleased to see how Brian Armstrong’s mission-focused company principles is growing rapidly:

A handful of founders and CEOs—Brian Armstrong of Coinbase, Jason Fried of Basecamp, Shopify’s Tobias Lütke, Medium’s Ev Williams—have said the unsayable. In the face of shop-floor social-justice activism, they’ve decided, business owners should resolve to stick to business.

No hashtag coders. No message-board threads about anti-racism or neo-pronouns. No open letters meant to get someone fired for a decade-old tweet. No politics. As Armstrong put it in his famous (or infamous) September 27th, 2020 blog post, business should be “mission focused.” A software developer explained that the conciliatory approach has become too costly: “The Slack shit, the company-wide emails, it definitely spills out into real life, and it’s a huge productivity drag.”

In October, a pseudonymous group inspired by Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong came together under the banner “Mission Protocol,” with the aim of getting other companies to start “putting aside activities and conversations” outside the scope of their professional missions. (“Mission focus doesn’t mean being apolitical,” they note. “It means being political about the mission. This mission is what you came together to accomplish, and this mission is what you’re fighting for in your work on the project.”) Paul Graham, a famed venture capitalist and “hacker philosopher,” tweeted his support to 1.3 million followers. Melia Russell, who covers the startup beat for Business Insider, noted that startups were jumping into the Mission Protocol threads “with a hell yes.”

One of the great achievements of the enlightenment was taking religion off the table. The result was peace, prosperity and the industrial revolution. In a similar way, sustaining cooperation among a diverse group of people, operating at a high level of performance is the task of great leaders and it means being mission focused.

Comments

Good post, but this avoids commenting on the more interesting part of the story:

From https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-just-civil-rights:

In September 2020, Coinbase released a statement saying that it did not want its employees engaging in politics on the job. The media lost its mind, and soon afterwards The New York Times ran a series of articles with the tone of “It’s a nice company you got there, would be a shame if something happened to it.”
...
The author went on to encourage regulators and lawyers to go after Coinbase for its “racism” and “sexism.”

Curtis Yarvin had an interesting take on the American right versus the woke-left-American corporate-university beast…..

As a right winger, if you view yourself more as a buffalo and the woke American Left as more of an apex predator, you will end up finding a lot more peace and happiness in this world. Right wingers that are trying to put the woke BEAST back in the box don’t get it……

That’s not your political enemy that you are struggling against. That’s an Apex predator much higher on the food chain than you. Be a Buffalo and make yourself invisible to the predator….

Be a buffalo and be slaughtered in the millions. Great advice, champ.

Poor Curtis sees no hope and his beloved wife has died. So he counsels nihilism. I am sorry for him, but this is horrible advice.

I’d much rather have an honest understanding of the totality of what I am facing and plan accordingly. As is, Tyler and Alex are playing a dangerous game by poking the bear when it comes to woke politics.

Again, it’s much better to view the Woke American Left as an apex predator. This point is easier to understand when you consider how much of the center left elite allow the woke left to permeate institutional life in America.

The military has been so easily subsumed by woke ideas because the center left gate keepers have happily allowed the woke left in.

It’s the same thing in law schools, HR departments, marketing companies, the permanent federal American bureaucracy, and on and on.

The center left elite have ZERO control over their woke zombie foot soldiers and now the barbarians have breached the wall and taken over every aspect of American life.

So your plan is to get slaughtered for your hide like a buffalo?

As Hanania says, the left has built bureaucracies inside and outside government to punish people who express viewpoints that offend left wing elites. Curtis Yarvin crossed that line, and was punished enough where he fled the public eye and avoided anything political.

At some level, Curtis Yarvin realized he's a small man, he was outmatched, he should accept that reality, concede defeat in politics, and enjoy a more private life of peace and happiness. And many right-leaning people don't understand the nature of these bureaucracies that exist to punish them if their voice ever gains influence.

Invisible, not dormant. It is well worth the investment to purchase used mobiles and notebooks as burner devices so you can use sock puppet accounts (with VPNs of course) to sow discord and chaos within the enemy's camp. Nothing fedposty of course, but with enough layers of op-sec to prevent a stray spicy comment from blowing back into your normie space. Use your personal device and real social media profile only for normie crap.

What corporate America is worried about is social movements undercutting the effectiveness of their corporate contributions.

If they were serious, they would stop supporting candidates who invoked religion to divide the electorate.

Not going to happen.

Remember the Muslim ban?
Anti-abortion candidates coordinating with religious groups?

"Remember the Muslim ban?"
Nope.

This is from six years ago, so it might be easy to forget Trump's position - "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Quote from a Trump issued policy paper from 2015, and the downvotes just come raining down.

Which corporations were lobbying for a “Muslim ban”?

Which corporations supported the person who did impose the "Muslim Ban"?
Did you see corporations speak out and lobbying on this or were they just happy with their tax cut?

You are oblivious to the age's zeitgeist. Wokeness permiates every aspect of business, political, and general public life.

The problem for the US is it never was very rigorous about defining "the people." Instead, it was decided at some point that America was a "proposition nation," but it's unclear who gets to define the proposition, what that proposition is, and what happens when you don't espouse it.

The proposition is pretty clear: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Any questions?

Yes. I have quite a few.

Am I at Liberty to associate and buy or sell with whom I wish?
Does the pursuit of Happiness include reparations?
If all men are created equal, what's the reason for unequal outcomes--it must be systemic racism?
Where do you get welfare and public schools from this proposition?
If you don't agree with Larry's Proposition, do we take away your America-card?

What a trite, silly comment.

To be honest, I doubt most (any?) corporations really care about "the effectiveness of their corporate contributions." They may care about the effective of those contributions as brand advertising, but not the underlying charitable purpose.

"...coordinating with religious groups?"

False equivalence for obvious reasons. Yikes.

First line correction: "corporate political contributions", not corporate contributions, although it could be assumed.

This post is just a fancy way of saying: there are 3 things you don't talk about [at work]: politics, religion and money. I’ve found it works wonders; while I’ve never worked at a particularly woke organization, I’ve built high performing teams of men and woman from most racial, religions, sexual-preference groups.

I would say that your experience is a classic example of selection bias. You've found that people who don't consider race, religion, or sexual orientation to be a key part of their identity are able to perform at higher levels, which to me seems very true.

The idea that you don't talk about these things at work may seem like common sense to you (maybe your business heyday was pre 2000s)? But, after twenty years of management consulting built on the idea that you should live your job and that you should indoctrinate your employees to proselytize your corporate "culture", it really shouldn't be so surprising that this movement has become so absurd. We're in the odd position where some in Corporate America can actually remember the past system and that it actually was better for everybody. This is difficult to grasp because we are so used to the idea of scientific progress creating better systems and technology, and social sciences seem like true sciences, but they are not. It is completely possible for perceived progress in social science to be a debilitating dead-end, which is what Critical Race Theory, Anti-racism, and Woke politics are.

It seems to me that a lot of companies needed single urban professionals with high neuroticism and few intimate bonds to give a lot of labor to firms in their childless 20s and 30s, but they didn't want to pay too much for it. The solution was selling them work as a lifestyle, social group, and answer to the big questions of life (which many of these people needed since the normal answer, having kids to take care of, was a decade or two off).

Vulcidian didn't say only hire people who "don't consider race, religion, or sexual orientation to be a key part of their identity." But rather, those are off the table for discussion when they are at work.

Right. Mission Protocol is codifying the "not talking about politics" part, since it needs to be codified.

Millennials seem to think the world never happened before they were born (except white men doing terribly things), so we need to start codifying what in the past were simply common-sense norms.

Right...

I'm *very* cautiously optimistic. They listed a handful of companies, while making claims about back-room conversations.

There needs to be enough companies doing this to alter alternatives to employees who don't want to abide by the new Clerisy. At some point, that may lead to companies being fearful of people leaving them because of the woke crap. But there's no guarantees at this point at all.

One exception I am ok with is to question leadership whether it really wants the company to be in a particular business or market, such as defense contracting or fossil fuels. Then let the leadership take an official position and either move on or move out. For example, CEO Nadella of Microsoft acknowledged employee requests not to work with the military and said, thanks, but no thanks, we will do this important business.

If that position bothers employees enough, get another job.

One exception is never one exception, it's simply the foundation for the next exception.

Mission Focused. No exceptions.

That's where capitalism comes in. There are plenty of people who are willing to work with the military--former military members, for example. If you want to avoid a market this creates a vacuum, and it's almost inevitable that someone will step into that vacuum.

By the same token, if you don't want to sell wedding cakes to a gay couple that's fine--someone else will gladly take that business, along with the press.

"By the same token, if you don't want to sell wedding cakes to an interracial couple that's fine"

You assume I would object to this. I do not. If you're such a backwards nitwit that you object to interracial marriages, that's on you. It's YOUR business, YOU get to decide which markets to pursue.

That said, please bear in mind that the list of things I believe are acceptable in capitalism is much larger than the list of things I find morally acceptable. Capitalism is the social structure for grownups, which includes understanding that you will need to see and put up with people doing things you find reprehensible. It's the price you pay for the liberty to do things yourself that others find reprehensible. That I believe someone has the right to do something IN NO WAY means I believe they are correct to do it.

"Capitalism is the social structure for grownups"

Ok. Favorite line of the day. Thanks.

"It's YOUR business, YOU get to decide which markets to pursue."
And of course, who is even allowed to set foot in your store. Or at least which bathroom they are allowed to use, or where they can sit to be served.

We have decided that the glory days of Jim Crow are no longer applicable, and it was not because of capitalism magically ending the idea of separate but equal when it came to where you could legally sit in a private railroad's passenger cars.

Businesses do not have a right to say they won't sell to Jews or Muslims or Sikhs either.

"that you will need to see and put up with people doing things you find reprehensible"
No, I do not. Capitalism is not a magical get out of redlining card.

"It's the price you pay for the liberty to do things yourself that others find reprehensible."
That does not describe anti-miscegnation laws, which ensured that no one could marry someone of a different race. Or are you forgetting who were the people finding the idea of races mixing reprehensible, and more than willing to put people in jail to enforce it? Less than a half century ago.

> We have decided that the glory days of Jim Crow are no longer applicable,

You forget that Jim Crow was the GOVERNMENT telling you who you can and can't serve. It wasn't the business owner deciding who could be served.

> and it was not because of capitalism magically ending the idea of separate but equal when it came to where you could legally sit in a private railroad's passenger cars.

Jim Crow laws ended when citizens decided that the behavior of Liberal Icons like Al Gore's dad were abhorrent. Al Gore Sr. fought for Jim Crow laws his entire life.

And you shouldn't be surprised this all came from left government. The same actors are trying to re-segregate everything: dorms, classes, graduations, dances. And the reason given today is exactly the same reason given 70 years ago: This is what the people want, and it's good for the people.

What is it about the left's desire to group people by race? Weird, I know.

You have a non-standard definition of "capitalism" you're using. I therefore don't see this as a fruitful conversation.

“ That does not describe anti-miscegnation laws,”

Laws…. You’re conflating legal restrictions with the wishes of business owners.

Eat shit, Um!

This is a marvelous post to try and unpack. We hear a lot from Ross through Tyler that our enemy is the surprisingly squishy word "decadence", which as best I can tell is that our culture is not serious enough about embracing some kind of puritan form of Catholicism. In this post the problem seems to be that there's too much religion in the form of "Woke" politics, and isn't it nice someone is trying to revive the old enlightenment idea of leaving that at home?

What neither of them seem to acknowledge is the idea of evangelical religions, which are both important and by definition to the believer cannot be left at home. These are quite simply the enemies of a free society, no matter what their form.

That is why this post seems to me full of contradictions. The idea of being "mission focused" on something else to a religious zealot is heresy.

What Voltaire and others realized is not that these matters should be left at home, but that through reason and education people would be made to understand that they are nonsensical wastes of time. The enlightenment did not take religion off of the table, it gave people who were already embracing nonevangelical forms of religion a common language. Hopefully these founders realize this. If these folks are truly mission-focused about creating a happier and more productive society, they must abandon things like Woke politics, not just leave them at home.

... good communicators don't force their audience to "try and unpack" the meaning in a communication.

Most people, including academics, have great difficulty getting to their point.

It seems like the Woke come primarily from Mainline denominations, not Evangelical ones. The children of lapsed Episcopalians and such.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

A puritan form of Catholicism? That's like a hot form of ice, or a democratic form of dictatorship. It doesn't make any sense. The two things are irreconcilable, if not indeed total opposites.

Jansenism was a puritan form of Roman Catholicism. It infected Ireland and the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. My guess is that it's the origin of the expression Black Catholics i.e. black-hearted (in the eyes of whoever is speaking).

God pre-ordained that you would post that comment.

puritan =/= Puritan. The Puritans wanted to purify England of Roman Catholic influences, but a puritan can simply be someone concerned with purity (whatever they mean by that). There are certainly puritan aspects to some Roman Catholic beliefs and practices.

Thanks for the chuckle: I'm having lots of fun with your wonderful malaprops "...puritan form of Catholicism."
Would that be Catholicism without saints? Without liturgy? Mass in a barn?
I remember some highly entertaining arguments from my youthful college days about protestant atheists vs catholic atheists, evangelical atheists vs orthodox atheists, etc. Some of the really inventive insisted on the existence of buddist atheists....

We would ultimately conclude that it was atheist turtles all the way down!

I'm glad to see someone else noticed this.

Do you know the old jokes:
- Jewish atheist - There is only one god, even if he doesn't exist.
- Catholic non-believer - I cannot accept Catholicism, even though it is the one true religion.

The latest threat to someone's understanding of the rightful order is always going to be savagely attacked.

>which as best I can tell is that our culture is not serious enough about embracing some kind of puritan form of Catholicism.

Please explain.

Thanks for pointing thisout. We have far too much "woke bashing" which has mostly been a way of stirring up the rightwingers in the US, and this post does mix a number of fruits together. However, those who have re-inserted religion in to the conversation are the evangelicals and the politicians catering to them.

While religious tolerance is generally good, we need to move beyond the idea of "freedom of religion" to "freedom of thought." I saw a claim the other day that 7 states still have laws banning atheists from holding office, which is completely absurd.

Bottomline: by all means focus on mission and respect without all the blather, but recognize that not all evil flows from "wokeness" -- whatever that sloppy term may mean to you.

The problem is, the Woke movement uses a lot of the language and tactics of previous religious purges. Maybe it doesn't fit the definition of religion, but it certainly acts like an evangelical one. Makes sense; religions have experience with this sort of thing, and it's always a good idea to copy people who have succeeded in what you're attempting to do.

I also don't buy the idea that you don't know exactly what "woke" means. I saw the same thing with the New Atheist movement--as long as it was convenient everyone knew exactly what was meant, but as soon as they became an embarrassment suddenly no one knew what "New Atheism" meant. It's a disingenuous argument. No one is using the term in a non-standard form. I will say that it's not entirely on you; modern movements work hard to create conditions in which they can disavow people once they become inconvenient. This means they can always pretend to be virtuous, even as they constantly re-define what it is to be virtuous. It is on you, however, that you allow them to get away with it.

"I saw a claim the other day that 7 states still have laws banning atheists from holding office, which is completely absurd."

Yeah, this kind of crap is pretty common. It's why a lot of non-Christians find the idea of a war on Christianity amusing. Various Christian sects literally write the laws in many states, and anyone who disagrees is legally excluded from the conversation. When we're legally obliged to pay homage to your god (had to on my marriage license, for example), and to follow the dictates of your religion (Blue Laws, legal prohibitions against polygamy, that sort of thing), and are forbidden from holding office (as you point out), you don't get to claim that you a persecuted. You're the one doing the persecuting. (In case it's not clear I'm not accusing you of this sort of thing. That's a general "you", not a specific one.)

States have a great deal of difficulty repealing obsolete laws, and only do it when it appears someone might actually bring them up. A good example is bright-blue states which still have abortion bans on their books. There has been a rush of efforts to repeal them now that it seems possible that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Agreed, but it's beside the point I was making in my last paragraph. The laws I was referencing either are or (in the case of Blue Laws) recently were on the books, actively enforced, and considered right, proper, or even necessary by large segments of the population. There's a strong push in the USA to legislate morality, and since Christian sects dominate the culture that means theocratic legislation, de facto if not explicitly. aguador's discovery about atheists not being able to hold office is no surprise to non-Christians; we deal with this stuff every day.

I may have missed a turn in the conversation, but are you saying that the laws that bar atheists from holding office in some states are actively enforced? Do you have a reference? Are not these laws clearly anticonstitutional? (Article VI: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States".)

Did it ever occur to you that the rules of social conservatism weren't necessarily dreamed up with you in mind?

" but recognize that not all evil flows from "wokeness""
True, but it sure seems to be leading the race.

While we are at it, how about a movement to scrap idiotic agendas like "corporate social responsibility" etc. ?

The only responsibility the corporation should have is towards its shareholders.

That’s a really toxic notion that is long past it’s expiration date.

How about
Corporate Irresponsibility
Instead?

Did you notice,
That if you make
A corporation
A person
For purposes of political contributions
There might come some
Responsibility with that designation.

Except that SCOTUS did not ground their argument on corporate personhood, but hacks like you perpetuate that myth.

Dear Citizens United Sockpuppet,

Let me clear up your ignorance.

The S Court went further, claiming a corporation was an "association of persons" from which it derived personhood.

From Wiki:
"The dominant view from the 1920s to the 1980s, championed by philosopher John Dewey, asserted that such perspectives are often overgeneralizations, and that the decision to grant corporate rights in a given sphere should be governed by the consequences of doing so[citation needed]. The 1980s saw an explosion of economic analyses, with a corporation often viewed as a nexus of contracts and as an economic agent appointed to act on behalf of its shareholders.

Some rulings combine multiple perspectives; the majority opinion in Citizen United argued both from an 'association' perspective ("if the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted... it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form") and from a 'natural entity' perspective ("the worth of speech 'does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual'").[7]

Treating corporations as having legal rights allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.

Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections that would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis. In United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, "[a]ppellants [suggested] the use of the word 'taxpayer' several times in the regulations requires the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation." The Court did not agree.[8] Likewise, corporations and organizations do not have privacy rights under the Privacy Act of 1974, since the statute refers to any “individual,” which it defines as “a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”[9]

Two things.

1) It seems to be that religion is a big part of peace, prosperity and the industrial revolution. Though this feels like too big an issue for a comment.

2) This line of attack probably isn't going to work, even if we'd all like it to.

The key word here is "religion". The Woke don't see themselves as "religious". They see themselves as "following the science". Now you can say all day that their science is wrong...but they don't believe you. And anyway, most of the science that they are wrong about are bell curve based hatefacts that are outside of the Overton Window in 99.9% of society, so how do you argue with them?

I've always taken Wokeness as a natural and logical path to follow if you start from an assumption of human neurological uniformity and worked out from there. Perhaps they are taking that base assumption "on faith", but we all know you aren't going to call them out on it in public.

I'd note that Coinbase got threatened by the NYTimes because, like everyone else, they don't have a lot of black coders because there aren't enough black coders because genes and the bell curve and all that. So for the crime of simply not wanting to be non-political they can get slapped with a disparate impact lawsuit because everyone can be slapped with one because reality has a disparate impact (even if you took race off the table, things like gender identity show that people can always make up a new category to be mad about).

NYT targeted Coinbase for legal action. I would infer their motive is to build political leverage and power over the industry.

The race issue is tied into this, but most tech companies don't have lots of black coders, Coinbase does hire black people, and seems sincerely non-racist. The left wants power and they are clearly using the law to force companies to support their political and religion-like agenda.

I'm not implying that Coinbase is racist.

I'm saying that the religion of Wokeism assumes that the only reason for disparities in outcome is racism, and there is a legal principle they can use to enforce that believe. Since everyone is guilty of systematic racism by definition that means anyone can be punished at any point for any reason.

The fact that this principal isn't enforced uniformly and only against political enemies by the relevant clerisy is par for the course isn't it.

Most people seek to protect themselves from the Woke by allying with the Woke so they can get unprincipled exceptions to universal guilt.

... the religion of Wokeism assumes that the only reason for disparities in outcome is racism

What is the *mechanism* in 'white supremacy' that results in 66% of 17 year old African Americans scoring at the 'below Basic' level on the 2019 NAEP mathematics test?

At the 'below basic' level the pupil cannot perform long division arithmetic reliably.

Is 'white supremacy' also responsible for millions of Indian young people passing through India's educational system without acquiring basic academic skills?

The ASER study of India’s youth in the 14-18 age group shows the following:

1. Only 56 per cent in this group could add weights correctly in kilograms.
2. Less than 60 per cent of this group could tell time correctly.
3. More than 50 per cent of this group struggled with arithmetic division problems.

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/nation/achievement/?grade=12

https://theprint.in/india/governance/any-government-job-cant-tell-time/29482/

That's quite a mashup of race, politics, power, law and religion in that post.
I think that pretty much would quality as an All-American post.

The key word here is "religion". The Woke don't see themselves as "religious"

Probably not. But a tick of the American Left is denial of what they actual believe, the logical implications of what they advocate and labels that accurate summarize and describe their beliefs. Pathological dishonesty is their hallmark. And that probably includes a large amount of self deception. Like a drunk driver that claims they are fine to drive.

Wokism is a moral framework. They can claim they’re just following science, or whatever, but anyone with a lick of sense sees that as a specious post hoc rationalization. What science leads to believing that gender is a state of mind, not a function of genetics for example.

Science is an exploration of physical reality. What is, not what aught to be, wokism is obsessed with what aught to be to the point of denying what is. And their aughts are an ersatz childish mash up of enlightenment ideals, Christian ethics and Marxist fantasy. Its an illogical, self contradictory, exclusionary and ultimately nihilistic belief system.

Woke has become a useless cliche. These people are hateful and destructive and they need to be slapped down at every opportunity. The larger problem is the intellectual and spiritual rot that pervades the media, entertainment and Democrat party.

Trump.

Someone somewhere once said, "Man does not live by bread alone." I don't think it's enough to tell people shut up and keep your religion to yourself and get busy with your widget-making.

The elites gave up on Christianity--on religious belief in general--and don't really know what to tell people at this point. So the new Woke religion arrives and overturns the society as thoroughly as the One God driving out the many gods. Now Christians have some understanding of what the pagan stalwarts must have felt when St. Boniface walked up and started chopping down Donar's Oak.

Unfortunately, the new religion has no Golden Rule or sense of humility, proportionality or hierarchy. It is as all-consuming as Protestant fundamentalism or Sunni Islam. It has, as I put it, no limiting principle. I don't think this ends well at all.

While I agree with the general point of the post, people get along better when they tolerate different beliefs in others…. I think you point here is right as well.

Even Voltaire himself famously said… “ Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer (if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him)”. Meaning that in the absence of eternal justice, there is no objective morality, and there is really no reason for people to act in upright manner. We end up in, let the strongest most powerful voice win; and to the victors go the spoils.

For example, the 20th century was probably the most violent murderous century in all of mankind… I think atheists killed more people in the first 50 years of the 20th century than in all religious wars in the prior million years combined.

When you take away the eternal moral code, we just get some other subjective code imposed upon us. Wokeism is just a replacement for theism.

Epistle to the author of the book, The Three Impostors

“Insipid writer, you pretend to draw for your readers The portraits of your 3 impostors;
How is it that, witlessly, you have become the fourth? Why, poor enemy of the supreme essence, Do you confuse Mohammed and the Creator, And the deeds of man with God, his author?... Criticize the servant, but respect the master. God should not suffer for the stupidity of the priest: Let us recognize this God, although he is poorly served.

My lodging is filled with lizards and rats;
But the architect exists, and anyone who denies it Is touched with madness under the guise of wisdom. Consult Zoroaster, and Minos, and Solon, And the martyr Socrates, and the great Cicero: They all adored a master, a judge, a father. This sublime system is necessary to man. It is the sacred tie that binds society, The first foundation of holy equity, The bridle to the wicked, the hope of the just. If the heavens, stripped of his noble imprint, Could ever cease to attest to his being, If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Let the wise man announce him and kings fear him. Kings, if you oppress me, if your eminencies disdain The tears of the innocent that you cause to flow, My avenger is in the heavens: learn to tremble. Such, at least, is the fruit of a useful creed.

But you, faulty logician, whose sad foolishness
Dares to reassure them in the path of crime,
What fruit do you expect to reap from your fine arguments? Will your children be more obedient to your voice? Your friends, at time of need, more useful and reliable? Your wife more honest? and your new renter, For not believing in God, will he pay you better? Alas! let's leave intact human belief in fear and hope.

In vain you raise as an objection to me the hypocritical insolence. Of these proud charlatans promoted to high honors, Nourished by our work, quenched by our tears; Of these Caesars tainted by their usurped grandeur; A priest on the Capitoline hill where Pompea triumphed; Of these wretches in sandals, the excrement of humanity, Soaking there detestable hands in our blood; At the sound of their voice a hundred towns are covered in ruins, And the horrible matins of bloodied Paris: I know these awful monuments better than you; I have unmasked them with my pen for the past fifty years. But, as the fearsome enemy of this fanaticism, I have also celebrated God when the devil was vanquished. I always distinguished between religion And the misery bred of superstition. Europe has thanked me; twenty crowned heads Have deigned to applaud the fortunate labors of my nights, While Patouillet was insulting me in vain. I have done more in my time than Luther and Calvin. They were seen opposing, in a fatal error, Abuses with abuses, scandal with scandal. Eager to throw themselves amidst the factions, They condemned the pope and wanted to imitate him. Europe was long desolated by them all; They troubled the earth, and I have consoled it. I have told the disputants, hounding one another: “Cease, impertinent ones, cease, unfortunate ones; Foolish children of God, cherish yourselves in your brothers, And stop biting one another for absurd chimeras." Good people have believed me: the evil ones, crushed, Have hurled cries that are scorned by the wise man; And in Europe, finally, happy toleration Has become the catechism of all well made souls.

I see from afar that era coming, those happy days, When philosophy, enlightening humanity,
Must lead them in peace to the feet of the common master; Frightful fanaticism will tremble to appear there: There will be less dogma with more virtue.

If someone wants to assume an official position, He will no longer bring along two witnesses To testify to his beliefs; rather they will swear to his good conduct.

A Huguenot lover will be able to marry
The attractive sister of an important cleric;
We will see poverty clothed and nourished
With the treasures of the Loretto, amassed for Mary; The children of Sarah, whom we treat like dogs, Will eat ham that has been cured by Christians. The Turk, without asking whether the imam will pardon him, Will go drink with the abbé Tamponet at the Sorbonne.My nephews will dine gaily and with no ill will With the descendants of the Pompignan brothers;
They will be able to pardon this harsh La Blétrie For having cut short the course of my life. We will see a reunion of the finest minds:
But who will ever be able to bear dining with Fréron?”

Bringing politics into the workplace is unprofessional behavior. It is reasonable to fire people for unprofessional behavior.

Sounds good on paper. Works out horrifically in reality.

For office people, politics is a topic of discussion just like any other. If there's a major election going on it's going to be impossible to prevent some discussion. Further, it affects people's schedules. Let's say I'm assisting with my uncle's campaign for local office, and request time off. Am I supposed to lie? Be cagy? What if I hold a local office? These aren't unusual occurrences; many local offices are part-time commitments and are held by people with regular jobs.

It gets worse. Non-office people often discuss a wide range of topics. How are you going to stop two people sampling a well from discussing an upcoming election? Self-reporting merely means that you're going to allow the most easily-offended (really, the most power-hungry) to attack everyone who disagrees with them. That's not speculation, that's coming from more than a decade as a field worker in a field that can get VERY politically charged (environmental compliance and remediation). This is what I've seen happen. Plus, it must be acknowledged that folks who risk their lives for their jobs on a regular basis are merely going to laugh at such rules and ignore them. We've got bigger issues to deal with, and we're going to do what we need to to survive. Discussions are important not for content, but as a way to keep an eye on each other; if they start getting loopy we know it's time for a long break.

And what constitutes politics? I got vaccinated against Covid, which is now a political issue. If I bring a Harry Potter book to read at lunch it's taken as a sign of my politics. If I wear a flag pin it's considered a discussion of politics. Even reading papers on global warming at lunch--something that I do as part of my job--has been seen as a political action. What shirt I wear has been seen as political. If someone wants to make something political they will, and rules forbidding discussion of politics at work give such people tremendous unearned power.

The reality is that you can't remove politics from discussions at work. The only thing you can do is set limits on acceptable behavior. Discussion is fine; arguments, attacking others, punitive action against those who disagree with you, etc are not. Don't punish the discussion, but certainly punish inappropriate behavior.

>For office people, politics is a topic of discussion just like any other.
In every office I've worked in, many topics are off-limits.

>The only thing you can do is set limits on acceptable behavior.
Yes, but this doesn't go far enough. Corporations need to stay out non-business issues e.g., political, social, religious. Full stop.

Corporate officers and employees need to remember that this isn't their money. They have a ethical duty to use stockholder's money for benefit of all shareholders. And, when those shareholders' interest diverge, they can't act. This is principle/agent 101.

And yet that rarely happens.

Why?

This is a good step forward. Essential that a similar movement arises in formation of human capital. I doubt that it will be possible to get the colleges and universities to concentrate on creating human capital. I also doubt that they will embrace their legitimate role as conveyors of values but with a spectrum of institutions educating for a spectrum of value systems. So I think the way forward is to have similar mission-focused training institutions. One whose only job is to teach people coding, or math, or for that matter comparative literature.

The real difficulty of the no politics/religion position is that if heads straight into the problem of defaults. The magic of today's wokeness isn't just the fact that you have to agree to a whole lot of things: It's that it also makes it clear that some things that some would not call political to be political.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that a vast majority of assumptions, coming from any direction, have embedded politics, even when the statements aren't intended to be political, just in the very same way that an old belief of women not belonging in workplaces might not appear religious in a society where a vast majority of people met the rule. When it comes down to it, everything that is questioned ends up being religion or politics. Unfortunately for Alex, this also includes vaccines.

So from where I stand, the problem is not that some people are bringing religion into workplaces (is making workers that can be remote in a computer come in because the boss likes everyone in the office religious?), but the fact that our shared base of things we agree on, and are therefore low conflict, is so low it's difficult to make decisions at work, specifically decisions that would normally be done at the executive level.

So from where I stand, the situation is very unfortunate, but it's not just that Basecamp's woke employees brought religion into the workplace: It's that they converted away from the religion of the executive team, making the fact that some decisions, which were always religious in a vacuum, are now religious in practice. We are in a similar boat when unvaccinated people sue because they want to keep working in an elderly residence. For the people that believe covid vaccines work, and that workers should meet some standards to keep said elderly alive, the decision is also religious: The fact that there are factual components underneath, and that the risk/reward tradeoff really has a practical, visible component isn't relevant, in the same way that meeting the demands of the woke also has practical components, which might help the company thrive or hinder it. Go talk to someone at Bayer about how to work in crop science if you believe their approach to pesticides harms the planet, or tell oil companies in the 80s about how you believe that burning gasoline is a bad idea.

It's always been religion all the time, and people are eventually willing to change religious beliefs when practical concerns show their beliefs are dangerous to themselves. So instead of pointing at specific groups of people for their religious behavior, we can just be sad because the number of beliefs that are part of our shared religion has shrunk.

Many on the right have come to recognize this as well, as the openly politicized reaction to Trump demonstrated that the press, law enforcement, and the scientific establishment are not neutral or disinterested. The problem comes in sorting out society when one is left with nothing more than "might makes right." The woke are obviously in ascendancy just now, but a backlash is bound to be coming, and the woke may find themselves remembering Thomas More and the Devil.

It seams to me that the woke infestation of business is driven in part by cartelization - with commensurate drop in competition.

Businesses in such environments become bloated, take their sales for granted and focus ever more internally. While that does not directly lead to wokism, it is a necessary precondition for its expression in businesses. Competitive business don’t have the time or desire to entertain the discontents that push it, nor the resources to tolerate the inevitable dead weight loss.

What do you mean by "Unfortunately"? What else is the "woke" movement supposed to do except to divide? Ask yourself, can anyone be woke enough? can you provide an example of a model woke individual?

The last question is easy. Titania McGrath.

Very bad and historically ignorant analogy since the British were quite strongly anti-Catholic and largely united around anti-Catholicism. Hence the Glorious Revolution to install a genuinely Protestant monarch, penal laws, foreign policy moves with the Ottomans to oppose Catholic Continental powers, etc.

Are you claiming that there were no Roman Catholics at the Exchange? Mightn't Voltaire have mentioned it if it were true?

Well yes, that is all well and good. Given that those that Go Woke, Go Broke, it is something all shareholders should demand.

The problem is that companies are increasingly run by the same sorts of people as the Woke Guards - graduates from the Ivy League. That is, the boardroom is down stream from the Student Common Room. That is why, for instance, Blackrock was key in getting some Green activists on Exxon's Board. Even though they intend to destroy Exxon and hence Blackrock's investment.

But there is another reason. Facebook and Zuckerberg can claim they had good intentions in investing so much in getting Trump out. They can pretend it is for Woke reasons. But it is likely that they also have business interests in getting rid of Trump.

Shareholders in American exercise ownership of corporation in the same way and extent that “the workers” owned enterprises in the Soviet Union.

What's wrong with destroying Exxon?

What’s wrong with destroying your home, R? Surely you’re not perfect according to the whim of the day. No moral problem here, right?

My home is already being destroyed by Exxon for the last decennia. Not exactly whim of the day.

Let’s speed the process up! With all this global warming, R won’t even need a house anymore!

Don't forget to put everyone who ever supported Exxon in camps as well

Excellent and thought provoking post -- thank you.

Nice post.
Amen!

The political left use legal and political pressure to break the will of most large American corporations. Companies like Google buckled under the pressure and bent the knee to the authoritarian left. It does take bravery to fight against such an authoritarian regime.

From Jody Lanard (@EIDGeek on Twitter) and Peter Sandman: We are happily reminded of our favorite (and incredibly gorgeous) building in Valencia -- the Lonja, or silk exchange. Its "contract room" has this marvelous inscription, with a translation we found on a wiki page. It speaks to our souls.

>Inclita domus sum annis aedificata quindecim. Gustate et videte concives quoniam bona est negotiatio, quae non agit dolum in lingua, quae jurat proximo et non deficit, quae pecuniam non dedit ad usuram eius. Mercator sic agens divitiis redundabit, et tandem vita fructur aeterna.[3]"I am an illustrious house built in fifteen years. Try and See, fellow-citizens, how negotiation is such a good thing when there is no lie in the speech, when it swears to the neighbour and does not deceive him, when it does not lend money with an interest charge for its use. The merchant who acts this way will prosper galore and at the end he will enjoy the eternal life.<

Ironic that today Spain has returned to the idea of lending money without interest... in fact, at negative interest.

Voltaire’s comment is specifically about a stock exchange, not any kind of business. A stock exchange is a place where you go trade things with people whose identities are not relevant and you will never see again. Today, our virtual stock exchanges are an even more perfect the Enlightenment colorblind ideal. When I buy or sell on my brokerage account, I don’t even what the religion, ethnicity, etc. of the person I am trading with is, much less care.

This is very different from a workplace when you are interacting with the same people over and over and have to build a working relationship with them. In that case, I don’t see how you can avoid human foibles such as religion or wokeness eventually entering. Forcibly suppressing is not the answer. Many of the companies listed had mass employee quits. I doubt the London Stock Exchange had any specific rules banning religion (would they have forced Muslims to trade bonds?). It’s just that the nature of a stock exchange is conducive to impersonality. Maybe there are ways to make work more impersonal too like blind hiring, but those may have other costs and it isn’t as simple as just telling people to leave their own values at home and focus on work.

"when you are interacting with the same people over and over and have to build a working relationship with them."
Ten years ago this didn't seem to be too hard. If you can't treat your co-workers with respect, how can you treat those you interact with on ad hoc basis with respect?
"Many of the companies listed had mass employee quits."
Good. The problems self identified and went away.

If you have to build and maintain a good working relationship with someone, that only furthers the point that people ought to leave their religion at home and focus on the task at hand.

"Many of the companies listed had mass employee quits. "

Can you elaborate?

"Many of the companies listed had mass employee quits."

Citation please?

I'd agree we've had prosperity and and industrial revolution post-Enlightenment but:
1) I would question what cursory examination of the past 250 years would give you any idea there has been "peace"?
2) I would not discount how much Christian values influenced and encouraged the development of human rights and market economics (see e.g., The WEIRDest People in the World by Heinrich, Dominion by Tom Holland, and Religion and Capitalism by Benjamin Friedman, all of which have been discussed previously on this blog).

Stiil, I think corporations embracing Gay Pride should also embrace religion-and-culture-based polygamy.

Can we carve out a Polygamy Day within the Gay Pride Month?

Inclusivity for al!

“Can we carve out a Polygamy Day within the Gay Pride Month?

Inclusivity for al!”

I’ve often felt al was oppressed, so I’m with you. Inclusively for al!

"al" is the polygamist-hip lowercase acronym for "all lifestyles."

Please do not micro-aggression me.

More wives but fewer letters? I guess you have to cut costs somewhere.

I would agree if the Mission was to get corporations and their media to shut up, it is Jeff Bezos who owns the Washington Post that they should tell to shut up, not Amazon’s over 1.2 million employees. They are not ones that want the Redskins to change their name. The essence of WOKE is that they are trying to solve someone else’s problems instead of their own

"One of the great achievements of the enlightenment was taking religion off the table. The result was peace, prosperity and the industrial revolution. "

I guess we're just going to ignore The French Revolution and the resulting Bonapartism, World Wars, Bolshevism, Maoism, Eugenics, and many other horrors that are arguably all fruits of "the Enlightenment".

yeah. and now we have tech evangelists everywhere as well

I think Alex linked to the Coinbase blog post twice instead of the Quillette article quoted.

My bad, the link is there, it was just not obvious to me given the way the lines were formatted on my phone.

I always thought it was the family. Business would be piss poor if women stopped bearing children and tried to buy them at Walmart instead.

Grievance Conservatives are Here to Stay
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2021/07/01/grievance-conservatives-are-here-to-stay/

What's really disturbing about this is the notion that the highest form of human cooperation is business. I would hold up family - with the possibility of children - as an obvious competitor.

No war but class war.

Who is
More "woke"
Jesus Christ or
Ayn Rand.

Upvote for Jesus Christ
Downvote for Ayn Rand.

I basically agree with Alex (and Voltaire) but what would he do about the religious colleges that want to accept federal funds without complying with federal civil rights regulations, or the bakeries that don't want to serve gay customers? (There are variations here: serving all customers under a don't ask-don't tell policy; serving all customers even when you know they're gay; serving all customers even when they've asked you to create a gay wedding cake which goes against your religious convictions.)

The American financial world is not as agnostic as Voltaire's London Stock Exchange. Flinging out 'woke' as a buzzword shows the lack of recognition of that fact. Yes, it is (mostly) religion-agnostic, but in many ways it is class and race discriminatory... and by 'financial world' I don't just mean narrow confines, I mean the financial world that affects most persons.

Re: " No open letters meant to get someone fired for a decade-old tweet. No politics."

Wonder whether
This post extends to
Corporate political contributions.

No politics
Means
No political contributions.

Or, is that special.

Our political and business systems would be significantly better if we'd limit contributions to individuals only, with a cap. No PACs, no contributions from businesses nor unions.

It's not the same thing. When a corporation makes a political donation, it almost always is doing so to protect or promote a business interest. For example, it may be trying to head off a regulation that would reduce its profit. It is perfectly legitimate for a business to try to protect its business. What it shouldn't do is try to promote things that have nothing to do with its business. The "Get Woke, Go Broke" phrase is a meme because it's so often true. Businesses have a responsibility to their shareholders to not do stupid things that hurt their shareholders.

"Special"... yes. I think you are getting to the root of the issue here.

You can add equating criticism of Israel as being anti semitic, sorry to hurt some conservative's safe space on this sensitive issue.

Even when it’s Nazi Germany buying IBM services to help them kill 6 million Jews and another 6 million non-Jews. Even when it’s slave traders just helping southern plantation owners secure more humans for chattel bondage. Add value for your customer, nothing else matters.

Sorry Alex, this post is ridiculously naive. It’s so perfect that you use Voltaire’s London Stock Exchange example. A good number of those Jews, Christians, and Muslims were getting along smashingly well trading the contents of slave ships.

ESG
ESG

What is interesting is that
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
Are part of a
Corporate Woke Movement
Which provides shareholders with
Information that lets them choose.

I wonder whether the
Environmental and Social
Part of it is
Woke

If you were a polluter, maybe you should listen.

No. Government/governing is the most important way in which human beings cooperate

No. Markets are the most important way in which human beings cooperate, and the second place is not even close.

There can be better ways to cooperate on the smaller scale (if there is high-trust and shared interests), but if we are talking about humanity as whole, with all of its diversity, nothing beats markets at cooperation.

...there are only 2 basic ways to organize human economic activity -- voluntary cooperation (markets) or involuntary commands to the populace (dictatorship or socialist oligarchy).

The U.S. has slowly but steadily pursued the second option since the Progressive Era.

Rugby and cricket clubs are the most important way in which human beings cooperate.

You might reply "pubs" but they are part of the market.

If we are talking about humanity as whole, with all of its diversity, nothing beats armies at cooperation.

Families are the most important way in which human beings cooperate.

Corporations are another word for things we do *with* each other. Government is another world for things we do *to* each other.

Comments for this post are closed