The Upheaval

Phyllis Tickle wrote a book on this about a decade ago. Her argument is that every ~500 years there is a major shakeup in the Christian world, and we’re in the midst of one right now. https://www.amazon.com/Great-Emergence-How-Christianity-Changing/dp/08… This post explains it well: https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/are-we-in-a-500-year-religious-revo…

They're blaming lawyers for the deportation fiascos, which are technically due to the European Court of Human Rights and not the EU. That bit will have to be left separately. However, what they're dealing with is ultimately all the same culture of managerialism: https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-china-convergence Civil servants went into meltdowns over Brexit because for the first time they might actually have to follow orders instead of telling ministers they can't do what they were elected to do because of the EU. We've seen how many of them claim to be neutral and then go straight into the Labor Party/Amnesty International/etc. The head of the Border Force even stated he'd never believed in borders at all. So the idea that they're merely blaming "people who don't agree with them" is right in some ultra-pedantic technical sense. The problem is, those people aren't supposed to have political opinions to begin with.

Here's some emergency reading https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/its-not-hypocrisy-youre-just-powerl…

“Poland and the demon in democracy” https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/poland-and-the-demon-in-democracy

Based on the author's other writings (e.g. https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/no-the-revolution-isnt-over), he appears to identify with the culturally conservative, anti-woke wing of American politics. Presumably, his team is team B, while modern liberals are presumably his team A, which from a neutral observer's standpoint makes the article rather bizarre. (And which might be why the author was careful not to label B and A in this article.)

https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/there-is-no-liberal-west describes it thusly: The act criminalizes utterances deemed to be “aggravated by prejudice” against any protected identity group (including race, religion, or transgender status) with up to seven years in prison. How exactly any of this is defined is not clear. Private speech, even within privates home, is not protected. Indeed, Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has argued that it absolutely “must be prosecuted.” A child’s report to a teacher of what a parent said at home will be sufficient. The Act specifies that it is immaterial “whether or not there is a specific victim of the offence,” and that “evidence from a single source is sufficient to prove that an offence is aggravated by prejudice.” In fact, “stirring up hatred” is now a criminal offense in Scotland – exactly the same all-purpose legal term so often put to use to punish dissent in the People’s Republic of China, including as the offense under which many of those pesky Hong Kong pro-democracy protestors were convicted. I should emphasize I don't know how reliable this source is, or if the bill was substantially altered before it became law. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821 states some changes have been made, but is very vague in describing them. The criminalization of speech within private homes remained: Yet even with that scrutiny, concerns remain. Offences can now be committed even in private, an abandonment of an…