The Liberal Post Liberals

Note: Behind the green door is a post about the 70’s classic Taxi Driver, a post about the legendary film and book, A Clockwork Orange and the Sunday podcast. You can sign up for a green door account at SubscribeStar or Substack.

Over the last several years, a group of academics and intellectuals have formed what is now called post-liberalism. The members of this group do not agree on many things, but they agree on one important thing and that is what they call liberalism has run its course and it is time for something new. Patrick Deneen, one of the key members of the post-liberals, has a new book out called Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future, in which he sets out to describe what should replace liberalism.

This is the third book from Deneen on the subject. In 2016, Deneen published Conserving America?, which was a collection of essays on the current social and moral troubles of this age. After that he published Why Liberalism Failed, which was a book length analysis of what he calls liberalism. This latest book is supposed to build on that second book and lay out a vision for how to put an end to the liberal order and provide a sketch for what should replace it.

Regime Change has been met with mostly negative reviews. A good example is from Charles Haywood at Worthy House, who was enthusiastically positive about Deneen’s prior book on the subject. It is also fair to say that Haywood is positively disposed to the broad concept of post-liberalism. He makes the point that despite the title, Deneen is not actually suggesting we change the regime. Instead, he offers up the usual list of reforms that have no chance of being considered.

The main problem with the book, as Haywood notes, is that it is organized in such a way as to avoid the main topic of the book. The first three quarters are a summary of the arguments Deneen made in his liberalism book. Instead of leading to a demand for a bloody revolution to overthrow the regime, replacing it with a dictatorship of recent Catholic converts, Deneen delivers a poorly conceived list of reforms and some bromides about racism and colonialism.

This gets to one of the main problems with the post-liberal project. It is not really post-liberal and the members are not opposed to liberalism. Instead, they oppose some of the consequences of the current ruling order. They appropriate words and concepts from dissidents, without fully understanding the meaning of them. The phrase “regime change” is a good example. One gets the sense that Deneen liked the sound of it and wrote a book so he could use it for a title.

More troubling, the post-liberals have not thought about why the arc of the liberal project has led to the present. If they wished to limit the scope, they could start with the American constitution and examine what happened along the way. It should be quite clear that the current ruling order is nothing like what the Framers created and nothing they imagined was possible. Chronicling how we got to this point, skipping past the speculation as to why it happened, would be a good start.

There is none of that in this book or in Deneen’s prior work. In fact, it is not particularly clear that he understands where to place the starting point of liberalism. He gives us far too many references to Aristotle, which is always a sign that the author is struggling with his choice of topics. He also likes to quote Aquinas. That is getting warmer, but when he talks about Locke, you wonder if he is talking about the same John Locke that the rest of us had to read in college.

Probably the most puzzling thing about the Deneen project is that he never mentions Alasdair MacIntyre, who was a long serving scholar at Notre Dame. He wrote the book, After Virtue, which was a highly successful critique of liberalism. If you search the name in Deneen’s last two books you get zero mentions. This is strange, since MacIntyre tackles the causes of liberalism’s failure and also takes on John Rawls, the most important liberal political thinker of the last century.

This gets to the main problem of the post-liberal project. They do a respectable job describing the present and the dangers it presents. Where they struggle is in understanding that maybe the current order is not actually a liberal order, but a post-liberal order. Further, they do not understand that the American project evolved outside of European liberalism. The Enlightenment is a good starting point, but the Reformation is a much better place to start.

All that said, none of this should be taken as a dismissal of the post-liberal project or the academics and intellectuals attracted to it. What Deneen and others are doing is drawing attention to the inherent flaws of the current order and in the process legitimizing the questioning of it. Slowly, questioning the assumptions of liberalism is becoming acceptable. When a bigfoot college academic calls for regime change, it is now acceptable to discuss the topic in polite company.

As far as the Deneen book, while it fails to deliver on the promise of the title, it is a useful look inside the mind of the post-liberal. The dissident will see the same struggle they experienced as they crossed the great divide. What comes through in this book is a man struggling to wake up from the myth of the 20th century. If members of the modern monastery are experiencing this, then it suggests the regime is far closer to a moral crisis than many would like to admit.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory.

Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at

136 thoughts on “The Liberal Post Liberals

  1. “When a bigfoot college academic calls for regime change, it is now acceptable to discuss the topic in polite company.”

    Yes. And regarding the realm of the bagel, the same can be said for Mearsheimer and Walt’s “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”. 2008

  2. You can diagnose a sickness without knowing the solution. I will be hated to say this, but the problem is the Reformation. Sola Fide is bad enough and liberal hypocrisy comes from it. But Sola Scriptura is the poison that killed Western civilization. It introduced subjectivism and relativism in the culture and no culture can live with that. The consequence was the Enlightenment, a secularized Reformation and a set of self-refuting relativistic and antisocial stupidities that were elevated at the status of the higher goods.

    After this, Western civilization destroyed itself trying to make squared circles and destroying everything that was against the idea that square circles are possible. Drinking poison as if it were a fine whiskey. A combox cannot explain this but I may write some pages in the future.

    After Sola Scriptura, the history of Western civilization could have taken 1000 different paths but any one of them would have ended up in disaster. Now dissidents want to go back to a previous stage of decadence but the path starting from this restoration would be different from our current path but also disastrous. The rest is commentary.. This being said with the best feelings with my Protestant brothers, who I love and even admire

    • As one brought up in the Roman Catholic faith tradition, but who has, after much thought, reflection and consideration of its flaws and failures, I do not hate you, certainly not after your concluding remark about your Protestant brothers, and in fact my initial reaction after reading your first paragraph was merely to think about how I could respond in a loving and respectful way. Herewith my effort. If one accepts that there is but One True God, one must ask how He communicates with His earthly children. I can conceive of only two ways: directly and through revealed, inspired Truth, viz., The Bible. Direct revelation, it seems to me, is and must of necessity be rare and carefully scrutinized, inasmuch as we humans are prone to believe what we want to believe. Every time I read or hear the phrase, “God told me…” I cringe and my skepticism reflex springs into action. This is true whether it comes from an individual or a collective, like The Curia or the Pope. It is only when the statement is preceded by the phrase, “The Bible says…” that I am open to continuing to listen, but only after considering what Scripture, properly interpreted and in context actually says. I respect the Roman Catholic emphasis on holy living, piety and morality, and in many contexts make common cause with The Church (the sinfulness of abortion being the most prominent). Both Protestants and Catholics believe in and recite The Apostles’ Creed and The Nicene Creed, so there is clearly a root of commonality in the two faith traditions. However, after examining many other doctrines and dogmas of The Church, I found that I simply could not find Biblical support for them, like Mary’s lack of original sin, her bodily assumption, the necessity of partaking in the Sacraments as a requirement for salvation, the doctrine of Purgatory and indulgences, and so on. My skepticism reflex prevented me from accepting the Catholic claim that there is no salvation outside the Roman Church because the Bible tells me that there is no salvation outside of faith in Jesus and His teachings, unfiltered by any intervening authority or “mediator.” In other words, sola scriptura; sola fide; solus Christus; and sola gratia, nothing less, but also nothing more. To blame The Reformation on our current woes is a bridge too far. The truth is that our current woes are no different in kind, albeit perhaps in degree from those that have afflicted mankind since Creation, viz., our fallen, sinful, selfish nature. No system contrived by and composed by men can ever avoid that singular fault and therefore, all such systems are plagued by those faults and failures to a greater or lesser degree. However, keep in mind that the Founders of America were by-and-large adherents to the Reformed tradition. Their efforts were most certainly formed and framed by their belief in Reformed theology, even those who are now claimed to be mere “deists.” Of all the signers of The Declaration, only Charles Carroll was a professing Roman Catholic. I believe that only Daniel Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimmons were Catholic participants in the Constitutional Convention; the rest were all either members of or descendants of members of a Protestant denomination. And the documents they came up with must be regarded as two of the finest examples of man’s efforts to create a good, just and righteous government. Imperfect to be sure, but about as good as we are ever going to get. And so I rest my case. Peace, brother.

      • Look at how it’s ended up. That’s the point of his original post, yes? This is how the Reformation ends. With the virtual abolition of Christianity across the West.

        You can debate the merits of your hermeneutic and exegetical approach to Scripture, but we are talking here about its effects upon the world of men, not scholars. The world of the polis.

        And the outcome is abominable.

    • I was writing on a tablet, tired after a hard day, so I couldn’t elaborate too much. The point of my comment is not religious. Of course, as a Catholic, I think that Protestantism is misguided, although I have Protestant people in my close family and friends and I have learned a lot from Protestant authors intellectually. But I may be wrong. It is not my intention to refight the Reformation, which seems a pointless boring exercise to me.

      When, after years of thinking and reading, I discovered that the root of the Western decadence was Luther, this saddened me. Because you cannot engage in a discussion about the root of our evils without engaging in a religious discussion. And the last thing I want is to attack the faith of our Protestant brethren.

      My point was not religious but cultural and civilizational. Sola Scriptura means that anybody can interpret the Bible as he sees fit. This is the opposite from civilization. No other religion or legal system allows everybody to interpret the law or the moral and considers all these interpretations as equals. There is no freedom to interpret the American Constitution: only the Supreme Court can do it. You can do it in your basement, but your interpretation is not considered the right interpretation.

      There is not freedom to interpret the holy scriptures of any religion: there is always a group of experts/wise men/holy men who produce the right interpretation.

      Man lives in society and society needs a common framework of good and evil. Sola Scriptura destroys that and produces relativism and individualism, that is, the opposite from society. If my individual conscience is paramount to define what is good and what is bad, I can disagree with the neighbor. The society dissolves in millions of different opinions.

      The second stage of Sola Scriptura was: if my conscience is paramount, I see that the Bible is not inspired. Look at those killings in the Old Testament. I can interpret the Bible as not coming from God. God may be something greater than the Bible (Deism) or may not exist (Atheism).

      This second stage is the Enlightenment and liberalism. My freedom (of thought, of expression, of action) is the most important value, because I define my values and nobody else can impose their values on me. This is the opposite from society, because society is based on people restraining their freedom to be able to live together according to a set of shared values.

      In addition, it does not matter than freedom, equality, progress and rights are complete stupidities that don’t resist a logical analysis of five minutes. They sound great because they allow people to act selfishly without guilt.

      So society dissolves in a fight of everybody against everybody, because everybody wants to act selfish and there is no common moral framework to restrain this behavior. Everybody wants freedom without obligation, rights without duties.

      How to solve that? The powerful people have power to impose their opinion, which favors them and damages everybody else. Since we don’t have a common truth, the only thing that is left is power.

      When Henry II killed Becket, there was the shared value that you should not kill an archbishop. So Henry II had to humble himself in public penance at Becket’s tomb and at the church of St. Dunstan’s. He had to reverse his previous policy about churchmen.

      Now the power cannot be restrained by society’s shared values. Since all values are equally valid, it can choose the value he wants and impose it with its power. When there is no common truth, there is only power. And all this started with Sola Scriptura.

    • Yeah I think the linkage between the moment of woke weirdness we are living through and the Reformation is kinda tenuous at best. At that scale just about everything could be blamed on Martin Luther.

      • Why is it tenuous? You didn’t give any reasons.

        On the contrary, wokeness descends directly from Martin Luther. Liberalism is secularized Reformation.

        Secularized universal priesthood = equality
        Secularized Sola Scriptura = relativism
        Secularized Sola Fide = liberty

        (All these principles were enunciated by Luther and systematized by Calvin)

        Wokeness is the last logical consequence of liberalism. A tranny is the embodiment of liberty (“Why she can’t be woman if she so wishes?”), equality (“Why she can’t be equal to biological women?”) and relativism (“After all, the concept of woman cannot be defined. Everybody has its own concept of woman”).

      • “At that scale just about everything could be blamed on Martin Luther.”

        I’ve always blamed it on Rousseau. There were guys before him that did the heavy lifting on self-centered relativism. But Rousseau’s “Confessions”, 1782, and his dramatic public reading tour of it, made it sexy. He won over the hot high society ladies in a way your frumpy Hume’s and Luther’s could not.

        • Rousseau was a turning point, no doubt about that. When I was standing before his tomb in Paris (this was my honeymoon), I told my wife: “I am sure there are cameras. This is why I don’t take my d*ck and piss over his tomb.”. This was followed by a series of expletives about the guy that have no easy translation. I don’t use these expletives normally but this was a special occasion. I despise the guy deeply and consider his ideas a cancer.

          From Luther there are two branches: Protestantism and Liberalism (which is secularized Reformation through Puritanism, Descartes, etc).

          In Liberalism there are two branches: Classical Liberalism and Progressivism (which is founded by Rousseau).

          Rousseau through Marx produces Communism, Rousseau through the Frankfurt School produces Political Correctness.

          So yes, Rousseau is the one that produces the modern world. His shadow is haunting us for centuries.

  3. Is it possible liberalism was never a political structure but rather the lack of a political structure? Post-liberalism may be the realization that someone needs to be in charge.

  4. Well it’d be exceedingly silly to spect the guys that crashed the empire… to have the smarts to save it. Or admit their own part in killing it. They’ll be swept away in fire, ash and blood as it goes with so much of history’s trash. The monsters they’ve created will destroy them and then they’ll destroy themselves.

    The people that will be left afterward will be hard, scarred…and changed.

  5. If liberalism is to be replaced, a cogent ideology should already be thought about beforehand. The reason that liberalism arose in the first place, whether rightly or wrongly, is that it was to put an account to the kings/nobles/strongmen who could arbitrarily act against the peasants and not be called to account. It was also to give power to the middle class/intelligentsia that felt they could contribute more to society than the parasitic nobility in their eyes. I think a lot of people are still wedded to liberalism as many still have romantic notions of empowering underprivileged people against tyrannical people or organizations. In fact, as simplistic as it is, people probably see those attempting to overthrow liberalism as enabling strong man rule again.

    To simply overthrow liberalism shouldn’t be an end goal of itself. The latest system should account for all the latest advances in the human sciences, including psychology, cognitive science, etc. Also the latest technological advances with instantaneous communications, AI, drones, etc. The end goal I think should be a system to preserve human dignity while tacitly allowing for the continued development of technology. Archeofuturism has been floated as one idea of preserving an honor bound culture while allowing for technology to flourish.

    • Red pilled millennial snowflake: “I think a lot of people are still wedded to liberalism as many still have romantic notions of empowering underprivileged people against tyrannical people or organizations.”

      But then they barge forward pigheadedly with the “own-goals”.

      Rutgers Set to Disenroll Students on August 15th if Not Compliant with COVID Vaccine Mandates


      If Sh!tlibs are going to send off their own flesh & blood progeny to institutions of higher edumakashunal learning, simply to be poisoned to death at the altar of Scientific Charismatic Group Think Euphoria & Mass Hysteria, then either sh!tlibbery is a suicide cult, or else there really is a Secret Society of old school sh!tlibs who do indeed take care of their own [via e.g. falsified paperwork for harmless normal saline placeboes masquerading as deadly Clot Juice].

    • “If liberalism is to be replaced, a cogent ideology should already be thought about beforehand.”

      You could not be more wrong if you took lessons in it. Ideology is a cancer; it is precisely the problem What’s needed is a return to natural law and the natural order, NOT ideology.

      “In fact, as simplistic as it is, people probably see those attempting to overthrow liberalism as enabling strong man rule again.”

      Strong-man rule is and always has been the norm in human history. It’s just how things are. It is the only natural expression of human nature. Liberalism has been a disastrous flash in the pan, and you are right to call it “simplistic” and “romantic.” Liberalism was never going to endure b/c is is 100% at odds with human nature. IT has run its dizzy course, and we are going to live through its traumatic and well-deserved demise.

      “The latest system should account for all the latest advances in the human sciences, including psychology, cognitive science, etc. ”

      Psychology is not a science. And I shudder to think what you might mean by “human sciences.”

      You are right about some things you say, but when you are wrong, you are spectacularly wrong.

      • The Deneen book just sounds like mental masturbation of the kind that Academia produces constantly…What we need is a new Constitution that eliminates discretionary and emergency powers of all kinds, all administrative delegations from Congress (the Court is looking at this) and all US military bases outside North America. It must exclude aliens from US citizenship and any Federal benefits…It must also return most power to the States, including the power to exclude aliens from all welfare programs and to deport them, as was originally intended…
        Ideally, it would ban women from voting in Federal elections….That’s the minimum program that would allow this country to survive….
        No chance of that happening without a crisis so severe that it will probably break up the US first….

    • I just read Guillaume Faye’s book with that title. The purpose of Archeofuturism is not for, “technology to flourish.” Aside from the fact that technology can’t flourish that isn’t the point of Archeofuturism.

      Archefuturism’s point is to restore tradition, hierarchy, reality and the primacy of nature to allow European peoples to flourish in a European imperium that has sovereignty and primacy in an international order. Most of the population will live traditional pre-industrial lives. The elites will have access to technology. They will administer the civilization and keep a tight control on the technologies that are utilized and developed. Ideally those will be technologies that have utility and that will be controlled in order to not tear apart the fabric of society.

      I am still digesting the implications of his proposal that he describes at the end of the book. In any case, what you described is not Archeofuturism.

      It is true that we simply replacing liberalism is not a goal. That would be foolish for many reasons if not for the fact that its logical conclusion replaced itself long ago by abolishing order and morphing from liberalism to libertinism. Libertinism is the tyranny of the pseudo freedom from reason and constraints and the abolition of duty and obligation.

    • The reason that liberalism arose in the first place, whether rightly or wrongly, is that it was to put an account to the kings/nobles/strongmen who could arbitrarily act against the peasants and not be called to account

      Secular authorities in Christendom were held to account by the church.

      Which admittedly was imperfect, to say the least. All to often the church was co-opted by the secular authorities and became their rubber stamp. But the ideal remained, and was actuated.

      One consequence of liberalism was to liberate governments from even theoretical religious limits. The first country to fully embrace liberalism was revolutionary France. Whose liberated government went on to commit atrocities unprecedented in christendom.

  6. Am I the only one who thinks Haywood has a megalomania streak to him? Like the guy is obviously intelligent, but when he talks about being a warlord, I’m like wtf.

    • It is mostly tongue-in-cheek but there’s a bit of arrogance there. Maybe that’s a necessary feature of any outspoken dissident. In any case, he’s usually a clear-eyed thinker well worth reading.

    • Republican radio and podcast guys are all super-cops and super-soldiers. Right-wigger social media characters do “hustle” rhetoric, supercar-full-of-prostitutes displays, and claim to be professional fighters. Dissident intellectuals (except BAP) scowl down Olympianly on every literary and philosophical giant in history. Haywood’s dweeby self-confidence is quite pleasant in comparison.

    • Yes. There is an arrogance there. There is something about him that isn’t likeable in my view.

      For me, what is off about him is his generic espousal of pursuing space as the next frontier. That sounds all fine and dandy but boy do we have a huge problem set down here to deal with – including a myopic pseudo-economy that is so debt addled it can never be repaid.

      Using AI and robots to mine the solar system for materials that make life on earth better seems like a reasonable endeavor if it is cost effective. However, I haven’t heard him articulate a vision other than, “Space! Because Space!”, to paraphrase. It is like the people who say we need to go to Mars because in 2.5 billion years the Earth will be incinerated. It is just one of those things that should give anyone with common sense pause to entrust that person with anything.

      • We go up into space or go extinct.

        By the way Nixon gutted the space program and we stopped going to the moon to make joggers whites.

        No. Keep up or fall behind, but to Hell with fixing problems or making life better down here, we have been down that road for 2 centuries.


      • Space is seen as the next frontier by a lot people. Which is just nuts.

        The whole obsession / fantasy wrt space colonization is a form of American ghost dancing. A desire to restore the imagined reality that existed a couple hundred years ago.

  7. I’m not an expert on Liberalism, but I have a difficult time accepting that we live in something Post Liberal. To me, where we are is where Liberalism was always headed. If anything, Liberalism is simply being carried to its logical conclusion.

    • From the perspective of many, probably including Deneen, they recognize that it’s not working, so it must not be liberalism.

    • Right on. NOTHING has been a serious barrier to liberalism since 1865. And here we are.

    • Yeah, I came to the same conclusion a while ago.

      It all starts with a clear definition of what liberalism is. Which requires explaining why that particular word was settled on as the label.

      No one wants to go that far. Instead they define liberal and liberalism by some basket of beliefs that they prefer and imagine existed at some point in the recent past (which makes their definition operationally conservative).

      So here’s my definition of liberal(ism). It’s root is liberation – the idea is that people should be liberated (freed) from outside control / influence. Why? Because people are innately good – as created by god – and evil / bad outcomes are caused by artificial outsode influences. Further, people are born tabula rasa – so anyone can become anything they desire given a supporting environment.

      The focus of what people needed liberation from has shift repeatedly over the centuries. Originally it was arbitrary authoritarian rule. Then religion. Which is what a lot of people today call “classical liberalism”. But freedom from those things failed to produce utopia and caused further problems. So liberalism moved onto a series of other things, society, economics, family etc.

      We are now at the point where liberalism is liberating us from our own biology. We are close to the logical end point where liberalism liberates people from life itself. Which is what the simulation fantasies equivilate.

      A post liberal order has to include the realities that people are not born tabula rasa, human nature is not inherently good, and people need structure control in their lives, not limitless freedom.

    • Post-Liberalism just means that egghead liberals are at the point of raising an eyebrow at each other. Quietly conveying, “Pssss. Hey. Pssss! Lev! …Shhhhh! Listen. I think we may have f*cked it all up. Meet me in the faculty lounge under the coat rack to discuss.”

  8. Completely, totally OT, but may I slip in a personal note to Jack Dobson and 3g4me?

    They were worried about their pumped water in a grid down situation. (My bestie is dealing with that now as our esteemed rulers Maui northern California’s coastal Gold Regions #5 and #6.)

    No power, no water.
    The solution is storage.

    I have a 2500 gallon tank, brought in on a pickup small flatbed trailer (fits anywhere, cheap). Cost about $900.

    Simply stick 1″ pvc pipe with a turnoff valve into the bottom outlet;
    the weight of the water alone gravity feeds to a simple faucet or petcock tee’d in along the line, to fill jugs or buckets.

    No powe necessary. I’d get two tanks, 5000 gallons, all you need is pipe. Just run the well long enough to refill the tanks with a big hose in a generator situation.

    For running water, add a “shallow well pump”. Pipe goes in one end, hose out the other to an existing faucet (I use my front yard faucet). It pressurizes the water pipes (turn off your well pipe, you don’t try to refill the well!) of your now closed system. Run the generator long enough to fill the hot water tank (it stays full) and to take a nice shower while the shallow pump pressurizes the system. (The s.w.p. plugs into a 3-prong outlet, $169 at Harbor Freight.)

    Or, for those of us with a Fremen ethos, heat two pots of water for a decent bucket bath. Soap very optional, you need to rinse.
    Grey, ditch, or rainwater from a bucket also does the flushing in the bathroom.

    Thanks. No power, no water?
    Then you need gravity-fed storage.

    (Or a ditch, bucket on a rope, and a washboard, my current backup to the backup.)

    • (Oops, desert / mountain peach farmers with families and animals use the 5000 gallon setup, to include your gerbils, goats, and cows.)

      • Dammit! And just plunk the tank down on flat ground. It’s pretty impervious to weather, as well, and the inside stays pristine. No need for fancy here.

        • For potable, if the water is above ground, then it’s gonna get rather warm, and would likely induce bacterial growth.

          So you’re gonna need to boil, or else you’re gonna need to add something like pellets of chlorine salts [apparently most people at most times of their lives can absorb the chlorine without damage to their kidneys???].

          All other things being equal, water in a subterranean well tends to be quite remarkably insulated against contamination [knock on wood].

          Of course, you could bury your tank, and turn it into a “cistern”, and in many localities, at many times of year, that ought to keep it fairly cool.

        • If you want to go full hillbilly, used 200 gal. totes from peanut or cottonseed processors in the South, $25 each.

          Food grade, so no poison or chemical residues.

          Or rent a backhoe for a pond, or dig and line a cistern.

          Tanks are much easier, all in all.

    • My basic principle is not to try and prep for the end of the world, since nobody can prep for that. A grid permanently down scenario is only plausible in a nuclear/emp/carrington event scenario. Otherwise, even in a worst case scenario, the power will still be on at least some of the time, like in South Africa. There are too many people who want the power on, who know how to make it happen, for it to go down and stay down permanently. So “realistically” you just need enough water stored to carry you through the few hours or days when it is off.

      Speaking of South Africa, the gravity tanks are very popular there these days. They fill them when the municipal water is on, and use that storage when the municipal water is off. Which is more or less a daily occurrence in many places there.

      • Jackson, Mississippi, Lahaina, Hawaii, and Texas in an ice storm say “hi.” Similar occurrences are the future. It isn’t the end of the world although that might be more desirable.

        • You are proving my point. Lahaina = end of the world, didn’t matter how you prepped, all you could do was run. Texas = everything back on in a few days tops. Jackson, a more intractable problem indeed, but even there, plentiful bottled water exists and will exist for many, many years to come, because in AINO, there are too many civilized whites and not enough savages for it to be otherwise for a couple centuries to come, unless Fauci Inc. comes up with an anti white people virus. Which might get us down to South Africa demographics, where plentiful bottled water is also still available.

          The safety of the bottled water being probably a separate subject

          • “in AINO, there are too many civilized whites and not enough savages for it to be otherwise for a couple centuries to come, unless Fauci Inc. comes up with an anti white people virus”

            A virus is not necessary. The biological weapons are in place. I don’t share your optimism.

            “The safety of the bottled water being probably a separate subject”

            Heh. It’s kind of the same subject.

      • Glad you saw it. Please tell our dear 3g.

        For septic or outhouses, welp, got some about that too. Digging a cistern or septic with a pickax in that hard red Georgia clay or San Joaquin hardpack? Not for the weak. And those outhouse wasps, skeeters, and widows are a bloody menace, I’m tellin’ ya.

        Thank gosh for that ditch next to my house. Rain burned out my electric s.w.pump, the nightly dip has been my bath for some months.
        Strong current, too!

        • Oh, and thank you too, Jeff Z.- that reminds me to set up tanks for my Dallas suburb microfarm (city water) and mountain Missouri (frequent power outages).

          So far behind, pathetic, really, but still trying to make scattered mini latifundia a thing.

          Let me get to outlaw garbage gas microrefineries and barefoot doctoring networks, then we’ll be cookin’!

          • Oops, and dissident mechanics networks- the tow truck scene, second-hand warehousers, garbage dump owners, recyclers and scrap yards / junkyards is the place to find a firm Mad Max parallel economy already thriving.

            (And Range Front Fault, we’re going to need you, dear.)

          • While I’m at it, Infant Phenomenon! Thou art needed, thou wilt be called upon if thou wouldst have it. We have no mind as fine as yours in the dire work.

            Systems and networks fellows! Electronics, radio, and neurologists! Thou art needed too.

            Someday, Zman, I should hope to recruit from these, the finest of minds. The scope is daunting, and I am but a lowly servant. I hope, that I might be worthy enough to plead boon from these, far better.

    • Alzaebo: Thanks for all the info. I have already been looking into those large potable water tanks – but they are expensive (particularly shipping – we don’t yet have a truck/trailer – that’s next on our list). Plus they’d need to be buried on the slope between the wellhead and the house. We’re on rock and that excavation will also be costly.

      I did just buy a Milwaukee battery pump (we already have a few Milwaukee batteries and tools) that can pressurize the water – and it will be useful for draining our small pond before winter (it will still fill with leaves and acorns, but hopefully not frog spawn). Saw it in action on YT yesterday and made an executive decision to order it.

  9. Even “leftists” (for lack of a better term) talk about collapse now. Even leftists realize the system has failed, or is in decline. Nobody outside the regime (to include its media) is putting up any pretense that things still work. But as to causes, they haven’t yet got much past racism, sexism, climate change, or we haven’t taxed the billionaires enough. It is doubtful if they can ever get past such considerations. Their utopia cannot be disproven unless it is, finally, really tried! As any roadblock or speed bump to their utopia is erected, their rage only grows. As we have seen. They would sooner put all of us in camps than admit that civilizational miscegenation is part of the problem.

    • I haven’t heard any non-libertarian mention taxes in a very long time. The one legacy of Marx in current (post-)leftism is that they want to obliterate all local things, especially the non-urban non-professional middle class—”daddy owns a dealership” is their kulak-equivalent insult (though never aimed at Joe Biden, whose daddy owned a dealership)—with the aid of (at the behest of) international finance. They want Elon gunned down by the IRS, but that’s not about taxes.

  10. It is funny that Hazony came up in the comments. This is the second reference to the Haywood review in a few days so my mind wandered to Hazony and the National Conservative movement. It was a relevant mental jaunt tied together by absurdity. A book that mentions regime change and critique of liberalism, that proposes no change and clings to liberalism is absurd.

    Similarly, a national crisis stemming from the world’s leading nation-state having its power center and leading thinkers based outside of that nations state, and being made up of an essentially international order is patently absurd. It is a sign of a huge power vacuum. No American man can or will stand up for the nation state and its natos in its cradle, so of course, a gaggle of foreigners will step in and happily guide the project.

    Of course, we see what is happening to the one man who, for all of his many flaws, is standing up for the American nation state. Of course, his sole achievements being pandering to an albatross population and concentrating his primary achievements in granting a foreign power primacy in getting its interests met above the nation state he supposedly champions.

    It is a dire state. I will take heart from Z-Man’s point that at least academics are uttering the phrases, even if they cower, suck their thumbs and issue regime bromides to avoid getting spanked, sent to the corner and grounded for the weekend in their velvet dungeons.

    • Reality Rules: “Similarly, a national crisis stemming from the world’s leading nation-state having its power center and leading thinkers based outside of that nations state, and being made up of an essentially international order is patently absurd. It is a sign of a huge power vacuum. No American man can or will stand up for the nation state and its natos in its cradle, so of course, a gaggle of foreigners will step in and happily guide the project.”


      Two patently absurd news items over the weekend:

      1) GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy says China can have Taiwan after 2028 if he is elected

      2) Hawaii Announces Plans for Ukraine Independence Day to Raise Money for Ukrainians – While They’re Still Digging Up Charred Bodies of Children in Maui

      QUESTION: How do you translate the yiddish, “chutzpah,” into hindi?

      Curious minds wanna know.

      Thanks in advance!!!

      • I don’t know. As for Hawaii and Ukraine Day, aside from an obvious game of, “Ho brah! Look ovah dayerr brah! Look da Ukraine brah! Nuttin’ to see Maui kind brah.”, game of incompetence distraction, the Tammany Hall of The Pacific Democrats is probably doing this to get billions in war appropriations for promoting the war.

        The GAE spoils system is going to be something to behold as things unravel.

      • In NJ there’s extra concentrated diversity. To the point the Hindi imitate the New York Jews to absurd and comical excess. Imagine a Jew with no brains and no soul (yes, tortured, twisted, self hating but it exists) and you have the Hindu hustle; the brains of Meso Americans with the morals of a Hollywood Jew.

  11. Stating the obvious, what’s needed is a move away from democracy and leveling, back towards aristocracy and nobility. The best have mingled with the common— they’re no longer inbred. Time to let them speciate, do their thing, and renew the body. Libs need to realize their job is long finished. They’re going to have a hard time with that.

    • Paintersforms: “The best have mingled with the common – they’re no longer inbred.”

      I have to continue to publicize Fast Eddie’s point of view here: Fast Eddie believes that chicks from wealthy White sh!tlib famblies are a bachelor’s best bet for motherhood, because wealthy White sh!tlib chicks are utter hypocrites who would NEVER engage in mμdsharkery.

      Personally, I sense that White sh!tlibs have set up something of a secret society of septua/octa/nonagenarian high achievers who are hell bent on nurturing & raising their own descendants into the secret society.

      For instance, I have watched doltish childhood friends of mine have their own children accepted into top tier Universities – Universities which my friends simply could not have supplied the intellectual DNA for – and the only two explanations I can think of are:

      A) IQ can hide recessively for a generation or two, before re-asserting its dominance in some subsequent generation, or

      B) This hypothesized Secret Society of Hypocritical White Sh!tlibs really does exist, and it really does takes care of its

      How do you get a dolt like John Kerry as Secretary of State, or an effete pederast turd like John Kirby as “Rear Admiral”, unless there’s a Secret Society which is choosing the winners?

      Rear. Admiral.

      REAR Admiral.

      That’s absolutely hilarious.

      • When we were kids, my friend couldn’t perform eighth grade “Algebra I” to save his life, yet his son gained admission to the #6 engineering skrewl in the entire nation.

        The secret here is that my friend’s father was a very prominent tenured intellectual, and I’m convinced that my friend’s father pulled a lot of strings & called in a bunch of favors to get that grandson admitted to the #6 engineering skrewl.

        There was also old money in the fambly, and that could have been translated into a large endowment gift to the #6 engineering skrewl.

      • “Fast Eddie believes that chicks from wealthy White sh!tlib famblies are a bachelor’s best bet for motherhood, because wealthy White sh!tlib chicks are utter hypocrites who would NEVER engage in mμdsharkery.”

        Drawing from women I’ve known, bourgeois but not upper crust, yeah, they’ve had kids. Some of that residual bourgeois conservatism. Mostly to unimpressive beancounters, and in the meantime imposing their craziness on the kids, vaxxing, etc. Raising up the offering to Moloch, Sophia, or Gaia, I suppose.

        I don’t know the best type. I’ll let you know when I meet her lol.

    • I’m positive the regime agrees with you. However, the aristocracy/nobility they have chosen isn’t the one I would have chosen.

  12. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » The Liberal Post Liberals

    • The most annoying part is they really think they’re edgy by embracing hard-line papalotry and theocracy while clutching their pearls the moment someone brings up simple biological truths every Catholic would nod along and agree with a hundred years ago.

      The dumb DEUS VULT and RETVRN larpers need to go. We can get inspiration from the past, but we’re in uncharted territory now.

        • At this point, I would almost settle for a pope that’s, you know, Catholic. At our house, we call Francis the Poop.

          Immature? Definitely. But that doesn’t make it any less accurate. This guy is the shittiest Pope in modern history. As far as I can tell, he doesn’t even like Catholics.

          • There’s no doubt in my mind if he walked into my home, he would be repulsed by the icons and ‘rigid’ books we own.

            There’s also no doubt in my mind if he visited my lesbian cousin’s house, he would have nothing but praise.

            At this point it doesn’t matter what he really believes, as his actions make him an enemy of the very faith he heads.

    • Fixed! I was thinking about linking to his other Deneen reviews and must have copied the wrong link. Worthy House is a great book review site. Very under appreciated.

  13. One begins to suspect that the first big sticking point is what Edward Banfield called “amoral familism” (in his book The Moral Basis of a Backward Society; not including the link in a no doubt doomed effort to avoid comment moderation).

    Thanks to the failure of the liberal order, social trust has collapsed to the point where “amoral familism” is, or soon will be, the only way to get things done. Need something fixed or added on to your house or place of business? You will soon discover that “your” house really belongs to The Government, and whatever you need fixed or added falls afoul of a million environmental, “safety,” and of course DIE regs, which are so vague that you couldn’t possibly comply with them even if you wanted to (see the entire Americans With Disabilities Act, passim, if you need examples… and note that the ADA was passed in 1990).

    So you get it done on the “gray market.” For cash, or barter. When the next plandemic shows up and they ban aspirin or whatever the new “1verm3ct1n” will be for the sake of Moderna’s stock price, you’ll need to know some guys with lotta vowels in their names, who were there to pick up a case when it fell off the back of a truck. And so on.

    But these eggheads undoubtedly don’t have any families, natural or artificial (a la the Mafia). They’re bugmen, and they only know other bugmen, which means they know better than anybody how fast bugmen will dime them to the Authorities. And even if they do have biological family, what are the odds they shot them (and themselves) up with Suddenly Juice?

    They can’t get past the obvious because they cut themselves off so comprehensively from the next logical step.

    • Severian: “…what are the odds they shot [their families] (and themselves) up with Suddenly Juice?”

      That’s an excellent question.

      They certainly didn’t bother to mask themselves at their various soirees & balls & cotillions.

      If they secretly weren’t masking, then maybe they were also secretly not v@xxing?!?!?

  14. The thing is that without discussing of racial demographics, the whole discussion is pointless. Ideological motivation is pretty much a white person thing, especially a Northwestern European thing.

    Black people believe in all kinds of wonky things, but it never affects their families/groups. They’ll say “Sheeit, he a uncle Tom” but there is no real anger over each other’s ideologies. White people truly feel anger and resentment at each other over our views on things.

    The rest of the world simply exists. There are 2 options:

    A – Corrupt authoritarian ruling class who gets more than their fair share, but throws some bones to their people (China, Russia, Middle East, Indonesia).

    B – Endless cycles of grinding poverty (India, Brazil, Afghanistan).

    Occasionally strongman B and his guys overthrow strongman A and his guys, and takes all their stuff. Practically speaking nothing changes for most people – the tribally minded government keeps enriching themselves at the people’s expense, and the people just go about their lives.

    Given the changing demographics of the entire West, a move towards scenario ‘A’ seems most likely for the United States, although our current ruling class seems to prefer option ‘B’ for the Dirt People. There will be no “liberalism” or “post-liberalism”, just a mass of people being ruled over by some other people.

    The only question is then – who will the rulers be? And whom will they benefit?

    • Tend to agree. I’m certainly so expert, but I envision a relatively orderly decay into something on the Latin American model (inclludes Brazil.) Note that I don’t welcome such a future — only that it seems most probable. And largely driven by demographic alterations. The foregoing is heavily contingent on “orderly.” Any number of disrputors would trash the scenario: a panemic worthy of the name, economic disaster (runaway inflation a likely candidate), honest-to-god civil war or insurrection, nuclear war, etc.

      People who have not read of world history, and ideally of having had first-hand experience visiting some of the third world, even if the better-off areas (e.g. Mexico), have very little grasp of the yawning chasm between the rich and the poor of the earth. Even the most abject “poor” in the US or the EU are amazingly well-off by the standards of the poorest in the backward parts of the Earth.

        • Same as Canada, our GDP per Capita is equivalent to something like the 47th poorest state (Louisiana), but with 15x more expensive housing and triple the taxes.

          AND the South is comprised by 30-40% of descendents of literal slaves.. Canada is so screwed.

          • Not really. Poor areas, as a rule, have higher rates of violent crime, suicide, drug addiction ,street pooping, and lower average IQs etc.
            This is true of any jurisdiction.

            UK, using the various metrics above, is much better off than Mississippi.
            I suspect it’s to do with the dollar being the number one reserve currency so it confuses the “signal” the dollar sends regarding the wealth of jurisdctions which use the dollar.

            Interesting they focus on the UK rather than France or Germany or Italy. Just the permanent hostility/ contempt Amtericans have for the British. UK has a higher per capita income than those three other European countries but apparently the UK is in trouble!

      • I question the orderly descent aspect of the decaying GAE.

        It seems we in the gae have lost the ability to be poor. Hence the unprecedented credit card debt to just get by. With so many households living pay check to pay check it seems that a lot of people are closer to the edge than anyone realizes.

        I wonder if our decline is going to look more like a cliff than a slope. The absolute dependency on outside resources for all of the daily needs seems to leave little room for a downward regression in an orderly manner.

        An orderly decline sounds better. Just not sure how we get there from here.

        • Right. You won’t be Latin America. Latin America is a poor region when EVERYTHING (from people, economy, laws, customs, taxes, etc.) is adapted to poverty.

          You will be a poor country when EVERYTHING is adapted to wealth.

    • Excellent points. To tie your comment to Zman’s post, wars were not always ideological in Northwestern European cultures, either. Prior to the Enlightenment era (or the Reformation, as per Zman), wars in Europe were mostly feudal in nature and fought over control of land and the resources it generated. Ideological Man, and therefore ideological war, grew out of the Reformation/Enlightenment, and perhaps the Industrial Revolution.

      The Haitian revolution and its aftermath is an excellent case study of your point. The various leaders of the slave revolt (Christophe, Toussaint, Dessalines) donned European-style clothing and did their best to emulate European-style rhetoric, dubbing Haiti a republic in the mold of France or the US. But it was never more than a simulacrum of a republic. Haiti’s political system devolved immediately into a series of strongmen rulers that persists to this day.

      Something happened to the brains of Northwestern Europeans in the aftermath of the Reformation/Enlightenment. Or maybe their brains were already adapted to accommodate ideological conflict as a result of evolutionary adaptation. In any event, this characteristic is clearly not universal.

      A diverse US will not be able to maintain a constitutional republic. It will devolve into a simulacrum of a republic, like Haiti or much of Central and South America. It’s already started. Without the human capital of Northwest European stock, the Constitution is just a scrap of paper.

    • You framed it well. I would make a few additions.

      As the United States continues to atomize as it grows weaker, and this may be the case up there in Canada and possibly down in Australia (Europe is too densely populated for this to happen there, I think), there very well may emerge the equivalent of warlordism, which initially will take to form of viceroys of sorts until the central government weakens sufficiently for the local dictator to emerge as something greater than a middle man. Another possibility, and it is the one being urged more or less now, will be redistribution of wealth from one racial or ethnic group to another. Again, that takes a strong and confident central government to pull off since people will revert to tribalism if there is not a mechanism to prevent them from doing so. Strip mining racial groupings, which will feature white victims mainly, will not be viable where that ethnicity is a majority absent a distant authority able to assert its will.

      Who will the rulers be? Those with enough power to be so, and that may ebb and flow constantly. I do not think the WEF wet dreams can come to fruition simply because the days of powerful centers likely will be gone in the near future, which seems counter-intuitive at first blush until you consider the decay is even worse among the top-rung instrumentalities.

      All in all, that’s unpleasant as hell but it could be worse.

  15. “Deneen delivers a poorly conceived list of reforms and some bromides about racism and colonialism.”

    Either he is in total fear of cancellation or, more likely IMHO, so successfully brainwashed in the subject that his mind cannot conceive of anything more important. As bad as all of our brainwashing has been, academics have it even worse living in it all day every working day.

    Academics may be able to legitimize a topic like regime change, but no original political ideas will ever come out of academia. Academics are now the prototypical “Team Player” types. Even if they have original political thoughts, they won’t ever say them, let alone write them down in a book.

    • The Haywood review is a good listen/read. he thinks the weird racism chapter was tacked on to inoculate Deneen against the old slander, but there is nothing in the rest of the book about race, so I am not sure. Imagine reading a book about woodworking at the end there is chapter on racism in the carpentry world. It was that weird.

      • It’s because he knows, perhaps unknown to himself, even, that the implications are exactly as racial as they are.

        It’s like the meme:

        > Pedophiles to the wood chipper!
        > Hey! Cool it with the anti-Semitism!

      • To me, that is evidence precisely that Deneen is attempting to cover his ass. Just as Leftist jurists can tease an iron-clad case for heauxmeaux marriage from the penumbral emanations of the Constitution, so Leftist academics can descry racism in even the most anodyne political prescriptions. Tacking on a seemingly incongruous anti-racist coda is thus almost certainly a defense mechanism.

        • Sad thing is, it won’t do any good – he opposes clown world, he’ll be called a racist. Simple as that

  16. What I find most striking about projects like the one that Z Man reviews is their absolute inability to question the imperative of a multi-racial society. This unwavering commitment is rooted in their foundational beliefs in compassion, fairness, and race-blindness, which only white people feel, generally speaking.

    If I could say one thing to them: “The people for whom you have ruined your society are incapable of reciprocating the deepest impulses that motivate you. Act accordingly.”

    Their absolute inability to question their assumptions makes me think that they are brainwashed. The only viable culprit for this brainwashing is the media and this is what leads me to focus on those who control the media.

    • Yes. But it is quite possible that a lot of the TradCath folks struggle with this problem because of the universalist credo of Catholicism. Haywood himself has crossed this bridge but others haven’t yet.

      The basic “friend/enemy” thing has to be the point of departure for any “regime change”. Academics aren’t going to cross this bridge for obvious reasons.

      • Dunno, Captain. I know my share of TradCaths. I would not say they are more scared of this sort of badthought than others.

        • The notion that Catholic “universalism” prevents racial distinctions or action upon them — or any other kind of distinction — is autistic nonsense and a red herring.

      • But was Catholicism truly universalist prior to Vatican II? The Crusades and the Wars of Religion lead me to doubt.

        • One of my sons and I attended a couple of Masses at a Caldean community Catholic Church. It was packed to the gills and the priest even shamed some of the women for “inappropriate dress” during his sermon. It was refreshing.

          Myself, my son and one man married to a Caldean woman comprised all the whites in the overflowing attendees.

          The Caldeans were polite enough, made the basic motions of courtesy to me and my boy as co-religionists… but that was where it ended. It was clear, based on friendly but pointed questions after Mass, that we were welcome to attend in a pinch, but this was their Church for their people.

          I could tell that a few of the men were a little uncomfortable with the obviousness of the unwelcome mat being so thinly veiled.

          They needn’t have been. I completely appreciated their point of view and prefer the same for me and mine. One God, different tribes.

          • Effectively, an Iraqi catholic church? Had never heard of the Chaldean Catholic Church before.

          • @Ostei:

            You likely haven’t heard about it since W’s invasion led to the massacre or forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Christian Iraqis, quietly supported by the State Department and United States military and largely the subject of a media blockade. Most of the slaughtered were Chaldean.

          • Yes. Iraqi Christians. They draw their lineage from John the Apostle. After the crucifixion he went to those lands and converted them. They are part of Syriac Catholicism. I believe F. Murray Abraham is one of the more famous Syriac Catholics… probably the reason he played a role in Siege of Vienna movie.

    • “Their absolute inability to question their assumptions makes me think that they are brainwashed. The only viable culprit for this brainwashing is the media and this is what leads me to focus on those who control the media.”

      They’re either brainwashed or afraid. Personally, my money is on fear — fear of lynch mobs showing up outside their door, fear of financial loss, fear of being shunned in polite society, and in some cases, fear of imprisonment or physical harm. But of course, this leads us to the same place — the media and those who control it.

      As long as our enemies control news and entertainment, truth-telling requires more courage than these so-called dissidents possess.

      • Yup, fear for the win. Machiavelli could move from exile to other work outside of Florence. This would be impossible today.

      • Deneen’s book is sold on Amazon and it’s published by Penguin Random House, so no surprise there’s no criticism of multiracialism.

      • Yes, fear. But why aren’t they afraid of the right? Even where “right wingers” are in control of some institution, they will not enforce ideological purity the way the left does.

        The right would first need to move away from conservatism, which in the modern US context is support for the status quo, whatever the status quo happens to be.

        What has made the left so damned powerful is the cowardice of the right. We are being bullied by freaks and misfits with purple hair and being gender-confused and homos and “minorities” Just about every problem we have is the fault of the right. The right has abandoned every responsibility it had since the 18th century.

        In 10 years there will be some new evil status quo and transgender children will be a republican virtue.

        • The GAE is at the late stage that almost every ancient empire went through.

          The entrenched bureaucratic power centers were headed up and maintained by eunuchs.

          We have an ever-increasing governmental cadre of self-mutilated men in dresses, tittering homosexuals, childless politicians, and angry middle aged women suffering with mental health issues.

          All as much of a genetic dead-end as those eunuchs from antiquity.

          Next comes the unbathed hordes of men with pillage and rapine in mind. Same old story.

          • “Next comes the unbathed hordes of men with pillage and rapine in mind.”

            That’s OK: they are natural conservatives.

        • Great comment. Yes, fear…and futility.

          “The right would first need to move away from conservatism, which in the modern US context is support for the status quo, whatever the status quo happens to be.”

          Precisely, and that may be happening. Most self-proclaimed conservatives actually are nationalists now, and perhaps that always has been the case although it was not defined as such and the concept was inchoate. I mean “nationalist” here in the traditional sense rather than the civic one.

          “What has made the left so damned powerful is the cowardice of the right. We are being bullied by freaks and misfits with purple hair and being gender-confused and homos and “minorities” Just about every problem we have is the fault of the right. The right has abandoned every responsibility it had since the 18th century.”

          Absolutely but the openings to fight back also have been few and far between. We actually may be in one of the rare moments of the last few centuries where opposition is possible and that largely is necessitated by the outer limits of retreat, strategic in isolated cases and largely forced in the vast majority, and changed minds as options grow limited and backs are against the wall. Most of the retreat was due to cowardice, but much was due to futility. The changed minds are the most important aspect. Retreat is being foreclosed so attitudes will be readjusted.

          Fear is a normal reaction. In the corner, people either commit suicide due to the fear or they fight back. Thus far it has been the former in slow motion, but changed minds may lead to changed reactions. That’s not necessarily hopium as it has been the case numerous times over history.

          Our enemies are showing fear as well and I don’t recall this previously. Much of their behavior is irrational, but most also reeks of fear.

          Transgenderism may be a republican virtue in ten years, or it may become a pariah. The latter seems more likely.

      • What is ironic is that previous generations of academics–beginning in the late 60s–taught the media everything they know about Leftist ideology and crushing dissent.

  17. I haven’t read this thing, but the drift of Z’s review is that Deneen’s book doesn’t quite live up to its billing.

    All I can say is, if you want a social traditionalist who really does bite the bullet, who describes what an illiberal regime would actually look like and why it is necessary, who actually does understand Aristotle and St. Thomas, and who actually does chart a course from A to B…

    …then you can always ask me.

    My bona fides in this respect are impeccable. Whether you agree with me or not, you can at least be perfectly assured that with me you’re getting the real-deal Traditionalism, to do with what you will. If you’re at all curious to know what St. Thomas would say if he were alive today, I’m your man.

    Now, I don’t have either the personality or the time to be a blogger. I don’t do “hot takes”; I do essays. But it’s always a great motivator to write when I know there are people reaching out for it, so I’ll be happy to entertain any questions.

      • I’ve never seen one millisecond of it and I don’t plan to. Serious inquiries only, please.

    • I would ask you to start by reconciling the traditional Catholic universalist worldview/ethos with the pretty clear need to draw firm “friend/enemy” distinctions to save our society/people. Perhaps Carl Schmitt did this, but I may have failed to understand it. I’m a finance guy and just an amateur (at best) philosopher. Thanks!

      (I always enjoy your posts; they’re extremely thought-provoking).

      • Thank you for your kind words, Captain Willard.

        While the topic of Christian universalism often raises hackles in these quarters, the simple (and I daresay anticlimactic) answer is that all the concern is really just the outcome of a faulty premise. There is no Christian universalism, at least not in the social sense.

        Christianity is only “universal” in the sense that the means of salvation is the same for every man. The atoning sacrifice of Christ is the sole and efficacious means of salvation for the children of men, “and there is no other name under Heaven by which we must be saved.” All this is to say that whether we are talking about Greeks, Jews, Numidians, or what have you, nobody is exempt from the rules. This is rather different from, indeed in many ways it is the exact opposite of, modern social attitudes.

        The fact that religion is not a social improvement program is somewhat lost on the modern ear, but this is only because the modern mind understands only social improvement programs, and the modern mind hears even the words of the Gospel with an ear that subtly and instantaneously transvaluates even the old verities into the modern idiom. But in the religion itself, such sentiments are not only not present, they are incomprehensible. Jesus quite frankly accepted that kings and emperors ruled with a iron hand, that slavery was a common fate, and that the poor would always be with us. Human rights were an unknown and untranslatable notion in first century Palestine. Those who find “equality: in Christian doctrine are reading it into it, not reading it out of it.

        The Church offers no prescriptions on how the differing races and nations of man are to get along. Whether they should integrate or separate, or rule or be ruled, is a matter of local conditions and prudential judgment. It is not a religious question. And for nearly all of Church history it is quite clear that nobody ever took it as a religious question except in peculiar instances when matters of doctrine or individual salvation were being directly impacted. But in the main, the whole history of Europe with its endless wars between Guelphs and Ghibellines, Tudors and Plantagenets, French and Germans, and a thousand petty dynastic struggles, serves rather well to illustrate that no concerns of “universalism” ever stayed the Christian hand even against other Christians and Europeans, let alone foreigners and pagans.

        “Christian universalism” is, therefore, nothing but a modern sentiment wearing old religious garb, and I must admit to sometimes losing my patience with those who still don’t understand this. It is part and parcel of the whole post Vatican II establishment which seeks to reduce the Church to another Leftist NGO, but it is not of the deposit of the faith.

        • “’Christian universalism’ is, therefore, nothing but a modern sentiment wearing old religious garb, and I must admit to sometimes losing my patience with those who still don’t understand this.”

          Why do you think this point is so universally misunderstood? You mentioned Vatican 2 but that only pushes the question back to why Vatican 2 had to happen.

          Do you think that this misinterpretation of Christianity is intentionally promoted and if so why?

          • LineInTheSand,

            It is, of course, intentionally promoted, mostly unconsciously, and indeed the antecedents were there before Vatican II. What it points to is a development within Western civilization itself. The reason the misunderstanding is so commonplace is because that misunderstood Christianity is the religion of the West.

            Christianity is not exclusively Western, and Western civilization is not natively Christian. However, because the Christian religious field overlaps the Western cultural field, there was always a great pseudomorphosis underway in which the Western religion (what Spengler would have called Faustianism) took over and misappropriated Christian language.

            St. Thomas Aquinas was a Christian thinker but not a Western thinker. The first truly Western figures, appearing shortly after the Gothic age, were men like Ockham and Duns Scotus, emphasizing the infinity and self-sufficiency of the will. This line progressed and made its decisive break with Christianity in the Protestant Reformation, which was the seedbed of Lockean rationalism, Kantian transcendentalism, and the Hegelian deification of history. Rationalism, Marxism, and scientific materialism are but the purified fruits of the Protestant attitude. But, post Marx, the sentimental Dickens-ism and Ibsen-ism became the religious world-feeling of a Western mankind that had grown weary of the demands of civilization and wished to sink itself in the oblivion of comfortable fantasy. This was the origin of Progressivism, and to be born on the soil of the modern West means to be born into this as one’s default worldview. Hence for most people it is not possible to avoid it.

        • Intelligent Dasein: Very well said. As you note, Jesus accepted the reality of autocratic rulers and distinct social classes, including slavery. To the best of my knowledge, He never denounced such but rather focused on the mutual social obligations between master and servant, king and subject.

          I noted this to a devout Christian friend, who averred that despite the fact Jesus did not denounce slavery, “He would have been against it.” Please note I am not advocating for the institution, but would be interested in hearing how you would respond to such a statement. Obviously it was an emotional one from a woman, albeit one who is usually quite rational.

          • 3g4me,

            I hope you’re able to help educate your friend. In fact, there is no need to speculate that Jesus “would be” against slavery because, in actual fact, He came into a world where slavery was quite commonly practiced and he said nothing contrary to it. We know that He was not against it.

            Servitude, which can be distinguished from chattel slavery, is the condition of most of mankind, then and now. The only thing that tends to obscure the fact in the modern age is our excessive reliance on machine power, but it would be odd indeed if an industrial revolution which would not take place for another 1800 years were the necessary prerequisite for the realization of “true Christianity” (although evangelical protestants of the Americanist stamp do seem to believe something like this). In any case, machine industry is a modern contrivance which, while enormously convenient, does not change the power relationship between man and man. Those of us who work for wages are still servants, albeit comfortable ones.

            Chattel slavery, where one human being is simply tied to the yoke like a beast by the will of another, is difficult to reconcile with he tender and merciful attitude that Christians should cultivate, but there are certain times when it cannot be avoided. And here is the essential point: It is not against the natural law. Unlike, say, sodomy, which is contrary to the intent of nature, slavery is natural condition under certain circumstances, and no one sins mortally by being either a master or a slave.

            It is enough to say that Christian Europe, while never being emphatically against chattel slavery, was successful at almost entirely eliminating it from society simply by cultivating virtuous living. That is about the best we can do this side of Heaven. Anything more than that is an affectation which fails to take heed of the material conditions of life as it is, which no sound philosophy can admit.

          • Slavery is a blight upon human history, but such things–and worse–are common enough. In fact, the various blights, abominations, atrocities and injustices are arguably the very core of human existence, with glorious achievements and halcyon times the periphery. Alas, the trans-Atlantic slave trade is a convenient cudgel with which to bash the white man and a scepter with which to confer sainthood upon the negro. And that is why it central to AINO’s master narrative. Personally, whenever I hear the jeremiads about the poor negro slave, my eye remains curiously dry…

        • Thanks very much for such an excellent reply to my question.

          But way before Vatican II, Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum (1891) firmly planted the Church in the social teaching business – both regarding unions and the proper social role of government. It could even be argued that Rerum Novarum was a foundational text for modern Christian Democratic political parties in Europe. While not a “universalist” tract, it sure inspired a lot of government activism.

          Do you agree? If so, what is the “corrective” doctrinal prescription for the excesses of modern Christian social thought. (Obviously Rerum Novarum is tame by today’s Catholic or Protestant standards).

          • Here we have to be careful not to fall into the same error we’ve identified in others. Rerum Novarum is actually wonderful. It defends private property, the family, the living wage, subsidiarity (read: no Deep State), and the solidarity it promotes among workers is very much in the same spirit as what DRs call “nationalism.”

            There is nothing there not to like. Indeed, I have been perplexed for many years about why Dissident Rightists aren’t just moving en masse to the Traditional Catholic Church. Everything they talk about is right there and has been for centuries. I would urge everybody to read the encyclical and see for themselves.

            The odious “social gospel” has nothing to do with the real social teachings of the Church. It is a collection of muddleheaded, quasi-religious justifications for international communism. The history of this particular heresy, put forth by Jesuits and communist infiltrators into the clergy, is well-attested and makes for very fascinating reading, but it should never be confused with doctrine.

          • Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot to answer your question about the corrective.

            The best antidote to fake Cristian mushiness is real Christian thought, and there is no better modern source for that than Pope St. Pius X.

            Do yourself a favor and read Pascendi dominici gregis and Lamentabili sane exitu by Pius X and the Syllabus of Errors by Pius IX.

    • I get the feeling that the same relationship exists between modern leftists and your favorite philosopher and the average leftist and Orwell or Ray Bradbury. I read a blurb written by Bradbury about an encounter he had with an English professor. She actually told him that he had no idea what he really meant when he wrote Fahrenheit 451. They did the same thing to Orwell when he was alive.

      If we could magically bring the Philosophers they claim to be following into the modern era, they would be denounced as racist, sexist and homophobic by their followers. None of the philosophers would recognize their own philosophy as is taught today.

      • By today’s capacious and preposterously one-sided standards, the overwhelming majority of intellectuals who died before 1960 would be classed as racists. But, of course, the comparatively minute cadre of postmodern intellectuals who rule the roost today are right, and the entire corpus of human thought that preceeded them was wrong. One might just be able to detect a touch of solipsism among these people…

  18. Your take and Haywood’s (Haywood was far less kind in regards to the intent of the author) remind me of the reactions of a recent Tim Pool podcast where he and that odd Jewish lady, whose name escapes me, were running interference on the demographic issue. On one hand, like Haywood would say, it’s infuriating that people nominally attached to the fringes with us would still try to cover for our enemies, but on the other hand you do bring up a good point that if they feel they have to speak to the issue at all it’s an encouraging sign, for us at least.

    • It’s more difficult for people who are or have been “plugged in” to the system to escape the fringes and join us on the other side of the great divide. I’ve never gone to swanky dinner parties nor been feted by academics or media types nor been involved in public policy of any kind. I am a true dirt person. It’s easy for me to point finger at cloud people or fringe people and yell “cuck!”

      But imagine your formative years and most of your middle years spent with people with their head up their ass and writing about it to some acclaim in deep-thinker magazines. It’s hard to leave that comfy world behind. They’re your friends and associates, after all. Look at Tucker. He knows the score, but he can’t. Being a true dissident – especially ones that espouse violence – means you’re going to lose your livelihood. And quite possibly your friends and family.

      But Deneen and Tucker and Caldwell, to their credit, can’t be total fakes, so they become edgytarian. It’s all they can do.

      And what would any of us do? Look at what happened to the J6 guys, and they were just being irreverent. Imagine actually espousing an armed revolution against the GAE.

  19. Yeah. Caldwell’s book struck me as similar: this great explanation of the profound flaws in the entire project. They are great for explaining just how terribly the rulers have managed everything and, implicitly, a wonderful primer about how there’s really only one solution to all this. And then, of course, they shudder at the obvious implication of what they’e just said.

    These books are terribly frustrating. These guys are much more deeply read than I and explain in very precise detail exactly how impossible the situation is. And then they come up with the solution which is some version of term limits!

    When you get to the point where you can see the video of the Somalian guy who shot the cops in North Dakota and you can think to yourself, “I do not wish for this to happen, but in a world where the men wearing that uniform are enforcing the will of those who are implacable enemies of my family, maybe this is as close to justice as we are likely to get,” then you are ready.

    • Agree and the term limit solution for our woes is totally lame – the only opportunity for those left the station decades ago. Hell, the closest we’ve come is limiting el presidente to two terms – at least two official terms…

    • I wrote about this with regards to Hazony’s nationalism book. You could tell he was wrestling with the obvious implications for himself if his audience accepted his argument.

      What you see with all of these guys is they want the fruits of a moral society without the ickiness that must come with it.

      • Bingo! This omelette and egg-breaking problem is perhaps the key issue to resolve for the DR. I hope you will devote an essay to it because I think most of us struggle with it.

        • Problem: chefs would would advocate actually breaking eggs can easily run afoul of fines and prison even in these relatively normal times. At least until more liberty is taken away, one does have the option to discuss hypotheticals, or perhaps to survey history, and so forth. And as already mentioned, it may be that things are too far gone to be reversed and they must follow their natural course. Returning to the cooking analogy: it may not be a wise choice to actually break, or even openly discuss, breaking the eggs. But one can write the cookbook of omlette recipes, to be used in a future when broken eggs are abundant.

      • I would put it differently.

        Hazony wants the fruits of a moral society because he himself is the ickiness.

        Therein lies the contradiction, and the parasite’s need for skills that are portable.

    • “When you get to the point where you can see the video of the Somalian guy who shot the cops in North Dakota ”

      I can’t believe what a racist you are!!! He was Syrian, not a Somali!!! God, don’t you know the difference between a black person and a brown person? Well, I never!

      How in god’s name can a Syrian claim asylum in the US? Assuming international law means anything whatsoever, the first “safe” country you arrive in is where you get asylum. He probably went through multiple countries before getting on a damned plane and coming to ruin our country!

      After the revolution, every single one of our “leaders” are going to be charged with treason and sentenced appropriately.

      • Skip the “charging”. I want to go right to the sentencing part and their time served will be the last “time” they will ever need to serve.

      • To be fair, under a you broke it, you bought it system of morality a lot of places could make an argument for asylum here. Which is why we need to stop breaking places.

  20. “If members of the modern monastery are experiencing this, then it suggests the regime is far closer to a moral crisis than many would like to admit.”

    Good, it’s about time some these supposed “big” thinkers pulled their heads out of their asses. Now, when they fully come to realize there is absolutely no reforming the current system, and that regime change begins with completely replacing the existing one, we’ll be getting somewhere.

    • Great point! But we are a helluva long way from the “What is to be Done?” moment though, aren’t we?

  21. Yes, it would have been good if a book called “Regime Change” had actually dealt with, you know, regime change, but I suppose that he didn’t want to get on a three-letter agency list quite yet, assuming he’s not on one now. But as you say, serious people are finally starting to realize that this clown show can’t and won’t go on, and that is indeed a hopeful sign.

    • My thoughts exactly. No real answer to the subject of the book. Also, as the Zman said, the “ bromides” about “ racism and colonialism “ told me the man isn’t serious.

Comments are closed.