03 Jul Hic Sunt Dracones
There are few certainties in this world, but one of those few is this: rest assured, anyone who calls for an “ethical” revolution or the overturning of society’s “values,” or a change in the “morality” by which institutions and their members are judged is merely looking to justify and legitimize his or her own aberrant behavior. Wanting to overthrow the “moral order” and replace it with something more rational, more compassionate, and less superstition-based is a tell: hic sunt dracones.
Note, this is true even if the ancien regime (as it were) is itself manifestly corrupt. The French Revolutionaries, for example, had legitimate gripes. The monarchy, the aristocracy, and the clergy were all manifestly and inarguably degenerate and in dire need of correction (if not full-blown comeuppance). That said, by overthrowing the moral foundations of their society while simultaneously overthrowing the rulers of that society, the French managed only to replace one set of degenerates with a second, the latter being more power-hungry and murderous by far than the former.
The same holds true for revolutionary Russia as well. The Czarist regime was pretty terrible, but overthrowing everything, including the moral code by which people were supposed to live their lives, in favor of a new, Marxist moral code didn’t exactly fix things. Indeed, it inarguably made them worse.
This is the case as well even in less violent and less literal revolutions. The “sexual revolution” may have “empowered” women to control their own bodies and their own sex lives and whatever, but it also empowered generations of sexual predators who have been able to silence any criticism of their predatory behavior simply by supporting the “right” (supposedly female-friendly) causes and articulating the “right” (supposedly female-friendly) ideas. Monsters like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton were forgiven, if their predation was ever even acknowledged, simply because they were pro-abortion and supported “pro-woman” policies (whatever that means). Likewise, ogres like Harvey Weinstein were given free rein because they too held the right beliefs and donated their wealth to the right party and made the right kind of movies. As the Rev. Paul McNellis, a Jesuit priest and a professor of philosophy at Boston College, noted about Weinstein’s most celebrated film:
If Hollywood were to offer us a movie in which a father, guilty of incest with his daughter, was treated as a dignified, even sympathetic character, would anyone be offended? Would anyone notice? And if this same movie treated abortion as a sacramental rite of passage, akin to confirmation or bar mitzvah, would anyone notice that? Apparently not, judging from the reaction to the film version of John Irving’s Cider House Rules.
The film has received seven Academy Award nominations. What’s more, the national president of Planned Parenthood is delighted with the film. Referring to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Gloria Feldt said, “The timing of this release couldn’t be better.” Planned Parenthood plans to host “private screenings, fundraisers, and discussion groups led by local film critics,” all with the goal of “reminding viewers of the threats to reproductive choice.” I have even heard members of the pro-life movement pronounce it “a beautiful movie.” I’ve heard no one describe it as cynical or pernicious. It is both.
It’s no wonder that both Hollywood and Washington shut their eyes to Weinstein’s sexual violence for decades. He was “one of them,” after all.
The same principle holds in business and finance as well. Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce, spends half his time prattling on about the need to create a different, more “moral” capitalism and the other half creating an executive compensation structure that enables him to become a billionaire and his top executives to become centi- and deca-millionaires at ordinary shareholders’ expense. The ESG folks are no different. They cynically manipulate investors’/people’s general decency to advance their own personal and political agendas, all while enriching themselves and patting themselves on the back for their righteousness. A “New Capitalism” indeed.
In any case, all of this brings us the big news out of Switzerland this week, as reported by The Wall Street Journal:
The World Economic Forum, the organization behind the annual Davos gathering of world leaders and chief executives, says its mission is no less than to improve the state of the world.
But under [Klaus] Schwab’s decadeslong oversight, the Forum has allowed to fester an atmosphere hostile to women and Black people in its own workplace, according to internal complaints, email exchanges and interviews with dozens of current and former Forum employees and other people familiar with the Forum’s practices.
At least six female staffers were pushed out or otherwise saw their careers suffer when they were pregnant or returning from maternity leave. Another half dozen described sexual harassment they experienced at the hands of senior managers, some of whom remain at the Forum. Two said they were sexually harassed years ago by VIPs at Forum gatherings, including at Davos, where female staff were expected to be at the delegates’ beck and call.
In two more recent incidents, employees registered internal complaints after white Forum managers used the N-word around Black employees. Black employees also raised formal complaints to Forum leaders about being passed over for promotions or left out of Davos….
Since the Forum’s earliest years, staffers say women received warnings about Schwab: If you find yourself alone with him, he may make uncomfortable comments about your appearance. They describe his behavior as more awkward than menacing, but inappropriate for a leader….
Three women who worked in Geneva closely with Schwab—a receptionist, a personal assistant, and a European staffer—told the Journal that the boss over several decades made suggestive comments to them that made them uncomfortable. Several other co-workers said they were aware of Schwab’s behavior with each of the women.
Ok. Raise your hand if you’re even remotely surprised by this.
Yeah. Me neither.
To be fair, none of what is being alleged of Klaus Schwab compares in any way to what has been provably done by others in similar positions – Bill Clinton, for example. At the same time, there is a reason why no one is surprised by any of this. As a rule, when someone or a group of someones declares that the old moral order is out of date or irrelevant and no longer applicable, it’s because they are either unable or unwilling to abide by the rules set up by the old order. They believe that they are “above” the old order, that it doesn’t matter, and that they can violate its precepts at will, without repercussion.
Bill Clinton famously told Tom Brokaw that he should be judged not by his personal life but by the causes he “fought for,” and the people he championed. Ted Kennedy famously left his wife, made bastards of his children (though annulment), left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown, and drunkenly harassed and molested cocktail waitresses for decades, but was still called “the Lion of the Senate,” a “champion” of women, and the “conscience” of the Democratic Party because of his unflinching liberalism and support for abortion. Old rules don’t matter, as long as you support the new rules.
Keep this in mind anytime someone tells you they’re going to “remake” this or “refashion” that or update the moral order of the other. They may actually plan to do so, but they probably have other, more salacious plans as well.
