Liberal Intolerance

There are certain assumptions about the world that modern people take for granted, without thinking about in any detail. These assumptions are about how things ought to be arranged in a modern society. Things like the rule of law and freedom of speech are just assumed to be social positives. Deliberate violations of these liberal principles are a sign that a society is in trouble or corrupt. No one ever wonders why this is the case as it is just part of the shared reality of modern life.

You see this in this essay by Paul Gottfried, which is a response to Canadian historian Ricardo Duchesne, who has taken Gottfried to task for his defense of the old bourgeois liberalism of the past. It is a good essay on the general topic of liberalism and whether or not it is to blame for the current crisis, but of interest here is the assertion that things like religious inclusiveness, individual freedom, and constitutional government are in of themselves good things and signs of progress.

Gottfried does not spend any time arguing these points, as he just assumes them to be good things that a good society ought to seek. This is not peculiar to Gottfried, as most everyone assumes the same thing. Go around a public area in the West and ask people if they favor more or less freedom and they will always pick the former. The same is true for the rest of the principles we associate with liberalism. The moral framework of the West is just assumed to be right and reasonable.

Now, we do not wonder about gravity or the sun rising in the east and setting in the west because these are settled. Few people know why objects fall to the earth when dropped and even fewer know that they accelerate toward the earth at thirty-two feet per second squared, but they know about gravity. Like the sun rising in the east, gravity is a settled matter, so there is no need to debate it. The same is generally assumed about the basic principles of liberal democracy.

What would go unnoticed is the inclusion of religious tolerance in there with reasonable things like individual liberty. Most of the liberal project can be justified, as much as possible, by reason. We can make logical arguments in favor of a rights-based society and limited government. You can make a rational argument in favor of parliamentary rule over a king or dictator. The same cannot be said for religious tolerance, which is something taken for granted, but never examined.

Western societies are moral societies. Instead of being bound together by kinship or force, as we see with most of the world, what holds Western people into political entitles is a common morality. Sure, blood, soil and history play a big role, but every European pollical entity has included significant minority populations. At the dawn of the French Revolution, most people in France did not share the same language. They spoke various local dialects, and in some areas, deferent languages.

This is even more true today as the elites of the West preach open borders, pluralism, and democracy as the holy trinity. The only way this can work is if all the new people agree to the old moral code or the moral code is adjusted to accommodate the new people coming into these old societies. The new speech and thought laws are all about policing the new moral code which prohibits the old stock from thinking anything but happy thoughts about the newcomers.

This is the basis for pluralism. Anyone can be an American if they embrace the American creed, which is a secular way of saying they can be an American if they embrace the religion of Americanism. Vivek Ramaswamy and Ben Shapiro have based their lives on this assertion. They are just as American as the descendants of Quakers or 19th century German immigrants. They say this because they embrace the religion of America and therefore meet the moral criteria to be American.

The problem here should be obvious. If Americanism is the moral code of America and by extension the West in general, and it insists on a general universality, then there can be no tolerance for alterative moral codes. Not only can American liberalism not tolerate alternative moral codes internally, but it must be intolerant of alternative moral codes external to the West. If you want to know why the West has waged war on Islam and now Eurasia, there is the answer.

The reason that Western societies now function like secular theocracies is liberalism has evolved into a religion. It has crowded out Christianity from the public square because no society can have more than one moral framework. Just as science replaced religious explanations for the natural world, liberalism has displaced the explicitly supernatural basis for societal morality with an esoteric moral code based vaguely on things like equality and openness.

What this means is that the assumption that religious tolerance is a liberal principle or could ever have been a liberal principle is false. The opposite is true. Liberalism must drive out or suppress any alternative moral framework, because it is the moral framework that evolved to replace the old moral order. That means it is not just intolerant or Christianity, but any morale framework that places itself above the morality of the liberal order. Everything must submit to the liberal faith.

The question, of course, is why has the liberal project that started at the end of the Middle Ages evolved into something like a secular Gnosticism? Gottfried looks for things outside of liberalism, like Protestantism, while Duchesne looks for things within the liberal tradition like pluralism. In both cases and in most critiques of liberalism the assumption is there is a worm in the apple. The apple being the liberal project and the worm being some sort of corruption.

In reality, the problem may simply lie in the fact that you cannot have a moral order based on reason. Reason cannot be the authority for how people ought to treat one another or how government should be organized. Reason can only take us to the point where the people need to sort these issues for themselves, because the great diversity of man means there is no universally right answer to these questions. How we ought to act is up to us or our gods.

When the gods are removed and tradition is discarded, something that must happen when all things are subjected to the acid wash of reason, there are no standards against which to measure moral claims. That leaves force as the determining factor, which means the moral order is decided by people who see it as their purpose to impose their sense of the moral order. Liberalism must end with a ruling class of secular clerics engaged in a never ending sermon.

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: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

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, so if you are a griller, take you spice business to one of our guys.

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

118 thoughts on “Liberal Intolerance

  1. inferior people eventually elect inferior ruler, it leads to inferior government, inferior society
    inferior ruler (Jew, Hindu, Chinese) exploits much more inferior people (blacks, Hispanic, mixed race)
    The public will feel that everything seems to be inferior

    Good riddance, America

  2. One of the problems with liberalism is that almost no one has a solid definition for the word or ideology.

    Instead, everyone has an associative list of things they like that they call liberal or things that they hat that they cal liberal.

    Which is odd, because the word itself reveals the root definition in a straightforward way. Liberation. Liberalism is the belief that people beed to be liberated from …
    Which is the problem, because that begs the questions of what and why. The what is whatever vexes one at any given point in time. A continuously shifting serious of things. They why is that the thing prevents utopia from being achieved. Just removing this one restraint will lead to heaven on earth.

    Which never happens, because it can never happen. So each victory of the ideology sows the seeds of more problems and future restraints to be liberated from.

    Ultimately, it comes down to ego, hubris and narcissism. Its adherents know how to create heaven and have the power to do so. Or so they believe.

  3. Progressivism became the moral code, and we are so heavily propagandized about it – night and day and day and night – nearly every song, every ad, every teevee show, every stage play, every billboard, every article, every essay, every movie, every celebrity wind-up doll, every college course and every political speech – that even someone on the right side of the Great Divide can occasionally slip up and catch himself defensively framing this or that in terms of “progress”.

    Think of the absurd assumption that underlies the entire Progressive belief system: Human nature can be improved. (And if not encouraged to improve, man can be FORCED to improve by a Progressive society.) No need to deny gravity to upend civilization when one can point to a false proposition like “human nature can be improved” and pretend its absurdity won’t implode in catastrophic failure of the highest order.

    Progressives are in the process of re-orienting (and rewriting) history in the pursuit of “Progress”. From this perspective, no wonder statues must be smashed and beauty is now but a filthy reminder of failure to achieve the blissful state where equality dispenses its dullard sheen on every facet of life. Graffiti is the new beauty.

    It’s pretty easy to see why in the Progressive’s mind, the Constitution must be destroyed — it doesn’t even mention the word “equality”! Along with the rest of High Civilization’s statues (and after a spectacle of wretched dancing about like rabid wild animals) the Constitution will be flung atop the heap of 1971’s bra burnings and lit afire. From bras to the Constitution in half a century – now that’s “progress”!

    As a random example of the au-currant progressive mind fart, drop the needle on any random 45 in the Obama Foundation voluminous catalogue of videos. Endless chatter and a stream of feel-good, upbeat buzzwords. So much excitement over, truly, nothing! It’s all but jibber-jabber to ears accustomed to a higher civilization. But to someone dialed in to the lowest common denominator progressive project (knowingly or even unknowingly) it is a comforting balm and promise of “change” – away from that nasty civilization that lacked worship of “equality”!

    Even if all of the great waves of last and this century’s newcomers who found assimilation too hard were to magically up and leave, America would still be saddled with its burdensome Progressive poison that began developing shortly after the ink dried on the Constitution.

  4. Men were taught to rely on reason and, later, on politics, by the technocratic elite of the Enlightenment. Royal Society and so forth. Same groups and mentality that still runs the world today.

    As to who taught the technocratic elite, I will leave that aside for now.

    Men were taught not to rely on God — we’re all SO evolved beyond all that superstition now! — but on themselves and upon other men. ‘This is the age of the Expanding Man’.
    Now, men are taught even worse: to rely on women.

    Before all this is done, men again will learn to rely upon God. Gonna be a bumpy lesson.

  5. To what extent is race the factor and to what extent is it other factors. Let me put it to you this way: if the country was as white as it was 6-7 decades ago, would it still be the same country?

    The reason I ask is because I was thinking about the movie home alone. I feel like families like the mccallisters don’t even exist anymore. I’m not a fan of sequels or soft reboots but some kind of sequel should be made where they age all the characters are grown up.

    But more importantly I feel that the McAllister kids, wherever they ended up, aren’t as well off as there parents. This is where I think people like ticket had interesting insights about cultural parasitism and what not

      • Krustykurmudgeon: “To what extent is race the factor and to what extent is it other factors.”

        There was a fascinating discussion over at Gab this week, concerning the phenomenon of holohoaxianity being leveraged to displace Christianity as the Amurrikkkun national religion, with the Shoah displacing & replacing the Crucifixion, the creation of israhell [1948/49] displacing & replacing the Resurrection, and the nation [which is to say, the RACE] of israhell displacing & replacing the body of Christ.

        Andrew Torba made it very difficult to obtain a Deep Link to anything at Gab, but the following URL gets you pretty close to the discussion:
        [Search for the lead sentence: “I think this corruption of Christianity is due to it being morphed and jewified…”]

        This inversion of Christianity, this holohoaxianity, also correlates very strongly with a fundamental observation in applied Behavioral Psychology, concerning toxic relationships, which principle holds that the abuser always inverts the vocabulary to demoralize & subdue & crush its prey psychologically; in their conversations, the abuser always deploys a vocabulary & a grammar which paints the victim as being responsible for the sadistic nature of their relationship, with the Abuser being free of any possible guilt, and the abuser’s personality being effectively an immaculate*** conception, a personality free of any possible guilt [which of course correlates very strongly with the abuser’s surfeit of Cluster B, not to mention the abuser’s psychopathy & aforementioned sadism].



    • Krustykurmudgeon: Excellent point. Of course, the traditional family was attacked and undermined precisely because it has been the building block of Western civilization, and proven the be most eficient means of transmitting values and maintaining wealth amongst the generations. You are absolutely correct that many families – either like the McAllisters or aspirational to their lifestyle, have slipped significantly down the economic and cultural ladder.

      The children of those families know what they’ve lost, and they are flailing about in casting blame. Much of it justifiably goes to feminism, divorce, two working parents, cultural relativism, and the immense, impersonal greed of corporatism. But even if you were to make good on the next generation’s economic aspirations, it would do nothing to rebuild their social values and deliberately debased morality.

      Thus the need for some form of White hierarchy and authoritarianism, until the ‘people’ again have a sense of history and self, and a concommitant pride in both.

    • It was 30 years from Ward Cleaver to Al Bundy, and the white percentage of AINO in that time dropped from maybe 89% to about 80%, roughly. Not really enough to alarm anyone. Other factors were in play. But it was very shortly after the advent of Bundy (who went on the air in 1987), within the next 5 years, that negro culture was elevated to the forefront of popular “music,” whether by design or by popular assent I couldn’t say. Perhaps these things were symptomatic of a larger plan, or just a larger decomposition. But either way, a significant percentage of the moral deterioration of whites was going on independent of any increasing vibrancy. Although the folks deciding what propaganda would be on the idiot box during this transition may have had certain goals in mind, to include increasing vibrancy. So while it’s difficult to separate out the civilizational miscegenation from the moral degeneration entirely, they seem to me be to be on separate but related arcs. Kind of like cousins.

      • It was by design. The CIA and the entertainment business are intimately connected.

        I remember the early 90s and all the “Two Live Crew” and “Boyz to Men” crap that took hold. It was very jarring to me because I had remembered just recently enjoying stuff like Journey, Clapton, Pink Floyd, etc.

        Don’t know what is more horrifying: that this crap is foisted from the top down or that a huge amount of our “fellow citizens” fall for it hook line and sinker.

        • It is really hard to believe that all of the sudden everybody just decided they liked Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer. Perhaps some percentage were always mindless enough to accept whatever was put in front of them. Granted the hair metal of the late 80s was not exactly carrying the torch very well. Indeed, popular music seems to have stagnated around that time prior to the advent of all the vibrancy. Ripe for a regime change.

          • i mean that stuff (Vanilla Ice) was garbage but you still had stuff that was waiting in the wings like alice in chains that was pretty good.

            I feel in some ways you could view the time period starting around 1973 (oil crisis) and ending either 2001 (9/11) or 2008 (the crash) as some sort of interregnum period. You could call it the “neoliberal era”

            Christopher Caldwell has said that what made this era work is that you had a best of both worlds for the social engineers. You had civil rights but it was more limited in scope. Most americans like the McAllisters could live as they pleased.

            This is also why I don’t get the blame towards the boomers. It seemed that they were still living relatively traditional lifestyles in the 80s/90s than the Xers and millenials that came later.

        • ‘It was by design. The CIA and the entertainment business are intimately connected.’

          Yoop. Top-down and by careful design. CIA and entertainment industry grew up together, in the mass-com age.

          The spooklings even had the inter-generational patience to effect the Fundamental Transformation incrementally, so them froggies wouldn’t notice the boil. Froggies figgered they were taking a hot-tub. :O)

        • “It was by design. The CIA jews and the entertainment business are intimately connected.”

          You misspelled jews above, I fixed it for you. This is a true Occam’s Razor moment. Let’s reach for an astoundingly complex conspiracy theory with what can easily be explained by ongoing far left tribal degeneracy, contempt, and loathing. Tribals being in control of media & entertainment for all the decades mentioned.

          It… it’s the CIA! Ok Alex Jones…

          • J, Bro!!!!!

            Lee Harvey Oswald’s handler prior to the ass@ssin@tion was the j00ish CIA agent, (((Reuben Efron))).

            The j00z only just fessed up to this a few short months ago:


            And, of course, Lee Harvey Oswald’s handler, status post the ass@ssin@tion, was (((Meyer Lansky)))’s man in Dallas, (((Jack “Ruby” Rubenstein))).

            Folks are only just now waking up to the reality that the CIA has always been a j00ish institution, and has always answered to the M0$$@d.

            The FedGov infiltration by the (((Tribe))) goes back at least as far as FDR choosing (((Henry Morgenthau Jr))) as Secretary of the Treasury in 1934.

            [Note that subsequently, in 1935, the j00, (((Carl Weiss))), was then given the green light to assassinate FDR’s chief rival, Huey Long, thereby insuring that the USA would enter WWII as an enemy of das Vaterland].

      • @Jeffrey Zoar – blacks have been a part of popular culture from the beginning though. You had guys like Sam Cooke 30 years before then and Louis Armstrong 30 years before that.

        Maybe the difference is that blacks tried to tailor there music to white audiences and with 2LiveCrew, they felt they didn’t need to

      • “…the moral deterioration of whites was going on independent of any increasing vibrancy…”

        I’d differ here, it’s not the numbers—as in population numbers—but the acceptance and admission of the culture of the race(s) that is the problem. Heck, if we are talking Blacks, then their (American) population percentage has remained pretty constant for the last 70 years or so.

        What happened was that whereas before the Civil Rights era, when we repressed their culture—basically we segregated them and allowed them to their own devices—we now embraced them and allowed them to be mainstreamed into our previously “White” culture. We gave them admission into our homes through the media of film, television, and radio.

        And here we are today.

    • Krusty-

      If you want to see a seriously unrealistic film, go watch Christmas Island on the Hallmark Channel.

      There are several points that will have your internal dialogue running like Gunny Hartman in Full Metal Jacket when he discovers a hidden jelly donut in Private Pyle’s foot locker:

  6. ” liberalism has displaced the explicitly supernatural basis for societal morality with an esoteric moral code based vaguely on things like equality and openness.”

    Given the frequency of headlines like “We Must Work to Eliminate Whiteness, by which they mean White people, ” and university course with names quite similar the above simply cannot be true. Liberalism is the assisted suicide of the European peoples where the foreigner is upheld as the new standard to which we aspire.

    Mr Gottfried ignores this and promotes this alleged openness and equlity of liberalism because even the most astute observers cannot see past that which is self-serving. Openness and religious “tolerance” are what enables him to present himself as a Western intellectual, of the right no-less.

    • When you understand that the existence of Whites is, itself, a repudiation of the concept that all men are equal, you will understand how this all fits together.

      Many people still labor under this idea that the American ideals are good, the Enlightenment was good, the open society is good, etc. So they think the hatred of Whites is somehow a contradiction of these good ideas of equality and freedom and all that. That view is the meta-expression of the, “Democrats are the real racists,” meme.

      • Also why they won’t leave the Japanese alone lately in harping on them to fling open their borders. After all “your people are aging. GDP Growth.”

        • I don’t know what’s up with that. They have simply decided that it’s not worth destroying Japan to take care of the retirements of 1 or 2 generations.

          It’s also schizophrenic. On the one hand, we have to stop having kids to save the planet or something, on the other hand we need a constantly growing population to appease the economy gods.

        • Japanese mind set and thinking. However, having watched some Japanese tv programs, I see a push by their Leftists to break this barrier of “Japan for the Japanese”.

          Quite odd as an Occidental to watch a Japanese show depicting the parent’s angst when the son wishes to take a Korean bride. So 1967’s “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” arrives 50 years late in Japan.

  7. There’s been a flurry of commentary lately from people like Hillary Clinton talking about “deprogramming” MAGA people. This has happened before, but it’s interesting that the vast majority of MAGA people don’t question the holy trinity of democracy, plurality and tolerance of liberalism, they are merely a different denomination, the way a Lutheran would be different from a Methodist. A dissident would drive by both churches and roll his eyes. The real emergency (for the churched) will be when the pews of both churches are empty.

    As a side note, religion just incorporates and codifies the values of the state while claiming that these values were always part of that religion. If they don’t, well, David Koresh would have had an opinion on that. This leaves Islam as an outlier. What to do with it? The inherent cowardice of the liberal prevents direct confrontation.

    • Hillary and Co. have correctly surmised that MAGA would be far easier to bring to heel than the Sons of Mohammed (if that even were possible). The problem is that the former in its present form would be necessary to thwart the latter due to the cowardice you mentioned, but the missionary zeal of the liberal Enlightenment is too strong to act rationally in that regard. There likely is a great deal of self-delusion that in time the latter will be conquered despite the fear.

      The most important event of recent history is not taking place in Gaza but in the streets of New York, D.C., and elsewhere. “Islam” (as shorthand for the post-Enlightenment power center) is ascendant and its liberal allies are both cowering before it and in many cases enabling the faithful. If ‘Hillary lived long enough, she would be forced to wear the burka or embrace its philosophical equivalent. Cannibal pots await the missionaries.

      • In the other timeline where Andrew Breitbart didn’t show off his celebrity dick pics to Opie & Anthony, America’s final president Hillary has made a peaceful transfer of power to King Anthony and Queen Huma, NATO is a Judeo-Caliphate (more so), and the Anglo/Germanic/Nordic remnant are its slave army (more openly).

        A Muslim/Jewish street fight under every public Christmas tree wasn’t the plan.

        • “A Muslim/Jewish street fight under every public Christmas tree wasn’t the plan.”

          Right. Black pills abound and justifiably so but this psychopathy never could work out as planned in the long turn. The problem is we have to suffer Muslims and Jews having pissing contests under Christmas trees for the foreseeable future. Just get as far away as possible and survive…and laugh at it, because this shit also is hilarious.

    • “religion just incorporates and codifies the values of the state while claiming that these values were always part of that religion.”

      Oh man. That is the kind of insight so good it makes me want to hang my head in shame. That is exactly why I see the Bible as political propaganda from beginning to end. The zigs and zags depended on which faction was in power at the time.

      Not just the Bible, no, all the schools of religion. Some have preserved much larger fragments of the ancient Aryan sciences (branches of Hinduism}, some a different approach {Tao, Shinto), some pre-literate Stone Age (Amerindian). The books, however, were written for political purposes.

      • David to scribes: “make sure to throw in there my ruddy looks and that I’m after God’s own heart. And when I dance around naked I’m actually worshipping him. And I was really really sorry about sending that woman’s husband to the front lines because I wanted to bed her.”….

        • OK, I get it—you don’t believe. However, the stories depicting immorality you so decry are not to written support the act (such as murder), but to illustrate the fallen nature of man—even a great man—and God’s use of them despite this. The stories do not support the act, nor have I ever heard such promoted by clergy. Oddly, only by non-believers.

          • Hmm, this seems akin to “Ignore the man behind the curtain”, frankly.

            I mean, the politics deployed in supposed scripture are a prime example of Fallen Man, are they not? Instead of just telling the truth that Abrahamic religions through their insistence upon the infallibility of scripture obfuscate this to a.significant degree.

    • Liberalism can eat Islam and then wear it as a skin suit. I had a gay friend in college (please clap) who had lived in one of those rich little Arab countries with access to all the hedonistic delights of Western liberalism, and he said there was never any difficulty finding booze or cute guys despite the severe illegality of such things in their deeply held religious faith.

  8. The question of morality, of what is right and what is wrong, cannot be adequately examined without acknowledging the existence of evil. If there is one thing I have come to accept in my 60 odd years in this life, it is that evil is real, is manifest, and like life itself seeks to expand and fill all available niches. Whether it is mindless like DNA propagating itself across the environment, or is wielded by Beelzebub himself from the seventh level of Hell is immaterial. It exists.

    As has been stated before in different ways, if all men were angels any political, religious, or economic system would work just fine to order the peaceful lives of mankind. But one bad apple spoils the barrel, so we can come up with any combination of these societal rules but they will always be subverted by evil, usually sooner than later. The only reality is the struggle against evil. The struggle is both external with the sword or pen, and internal against the devil inside.

    Why this is I have no idea. I’m also not sure whether this is unique to humans and/or intelligence (can a lion or virus be evil?), or whether evil is part of the very fabric of reality. Perhaps it is the struggle itself which allows for growth and understanding, perhaps it is simply chaos. Guess I should read more philosophy.

    • “The question of morality, of what is right and what is wrong, cannot be adequately examined without acknowledging the existence of evil. If there is one thing I have come to accept in my 60 odd years in this life, it is that evil is real, is manifest, and like life itself seeks to expand and fill all available niches. Whether it is mindless like DNA propagating itself across the environment, or is wielded by Beelzebub himself from the seventh level of Hell is immaterial. It exists.”

      Exactly. Thanks. You have brilliantly summed up the same place I have landed at the last reel of my life. I don’t know if there is a God, but I know damned well there is actual, literal evil.

    • Philosophy will not and cannot answer the question.
      One must go to the natural sciences, including the oogily-boogily as a dataset.

      Evil exists because of the limits of the building material.
      Both evil and the building material exist because they have a function.
      Good also exists, why? Because it has a function.

      You are correct. Heaven is not the problem. Hell is the problem.
      The only two questions that matter are pain and death.

    • Spot on! It’s as simple as that: Good v Evil. I wonder what other evils will rear their ugly heads in the year to come? And how good people will respond.

  9. Imagine claiming to have a society based on reason and then letting women vote on how it is run. Even 18 year old ones. Ha ha, no, seriously.

    But to be fair, I don’t recall that it was ever claimed that “reason” was our guiding principle. I’m old enough to have taken civics in school and nobody said a word about reason that I can remember, at least not in the context of being a guiding principle of liberal democracy. I do remember something about liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I’m sure I read that somewhere.

    And we are getting exactly that. Or at least certain forms of it which have been defined as acceptable.

    • Absolutely..My civics teacher taught us to refer to the 19th Amendment as The Great Mistake….The Founders, a highly intelligent group, limited the franchise to men who owned property–in other words, had skin in the game…That was reason, and resulted in our greatest Presidents..but emotion and female lobbying eroded that until we were electing populist clowns like Wilson, FDR, Clinton, and Obama…Liberalism is about emotion, and social fads that appeal to women, nothing more…
      In other words, feminism is death.

      • Sooo good fellas. A banger.
        “Imagine…then letting women vote on how it is run.”

        I swear, that’s going to be my new pick-up line.
        Guaranteed to light their fire.

      • Yes, the early voters had “skin in the game”, but was that the real intent or essential aspect of the restriction placed upon the franchise? I’d argue no.

        How did you get “skin in the game” (property)? Through hard work and determination to succeed. In short, you were a superior being—brighter, stronger, more successful, productive—and that made you more able to make good decisions for society. Via your vote Call it political Darwinism, or as I do “earned suffrage”.

      • Well, to be fair about it, an awful lot of men are unimpressive voters as well, but that is an artifact of the unfortunate reality of overexpansion of the franchise, placing the Republic’s furtherance in unworthy hands.

  10. why has the liberal project that started at the end of the Middle Ages evolved into something like a secular Gnosticism?


    Your phrase “secular Gnosticism” is excellent. Gnostics are sinners, of course, and materialism and hedonism are also part of the package we see in the West.

  11. The problem is not that we have fallen from our principles, it is that our principles were in error.

    It might help to read through the history of the Maryland colony – founded as a place where Catholic Englishmen might go after having experienced a very long sequences of losses in the old country. One thing we were taught in the MD schools is that the colony had the very first declaration of religious tolerance in America. Yay!

    We were not taught that the Puritans, having been expelled from Virginia – which did not have religious freedom – landed near Annapolis and promptly outlawed Catholic practice. There were literally two little wars fought to expel those intolerant Puritans from Maryland so that free exercise of religion could be re-established. Yay!

    A few years later, there was a Protestant revolution, which banned Catholic practice until after the Revolution. Sad and intolerant!

    Point is, you can’t have tolerance of contradictory moral codes. There is always an established religion.

    • Amazingly, there was only one Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence – Charles Carroll of Maryland.

      You make a great point – one group has always struggling to be on top in the US and it’s going to continue.

    • If you don’t have a State religion, you will have a State religion imposed on you by people who hate you…

    • “The problem is not that we have fallen from our principles, it is that our principles were in error.”

      You are dead center with this comment. Not only are the principles in error, they are abstractions that are considered good in and of themselves and even worse, that they are considered better everytime the principle is applied more broadly to more people, institutions and situations.

      Openness. Fairness. Inclusion. Diversity. Niceness. Safety.

      Those are not even principles. They are abstractions. Of course, their application is also an inversion of the stated value.

      The society is more open, yet it must be more closed. Why? Opening the society to the other and outsider and expropriating the insider to open it for resettlement rightly causes the outsider to protest, to resist. So, you must close down debate, freedom of assembly and disenfranchise the insider in order to do so.

      In other words, these words are not principles or values. They are pure sophistry that thinly veil the total inversion of the word/principle/value.

      Diversity is the best one yet. The fewer whites in ads, photos, institutions … … the more diverse they are. Follow the genetic and cultural inevitability of this mass population resettlement and there will be zero diversity of races and cultures. It will be a genetic soup where everyone consumes: Disney, Sportsball, the lowest common denominator culture of the black underclass.

      Dispossession (of white men)
      Intolerance (of dissent by white men being dispossessed)
      Exclusion (of white men from any institutional power and benefits)

      We are still in Yol. It is up to us to contemplate, embody and pass on real moral values and principles. I think in Yol they are:

      Love (not convinced of this)
      Self Reliance

  12. It seems like whatever moral code a society embraces, that society begins to fall apart when a critical mass of its’ subjects no longer have faith in that moral code.

  13. One of the things that conservatives of all stripes—which means dissidents, too—will find it difficult to understand or admit, is that, in the presence of a material abundance, Progressive ideas really do result in increasing levels of prosperity and social peace.

    That is because, like an insurance policy, they help to defray risk. We’ve heard it said time and again that liberalism is about morality; it’s not, it’s actually about indemnity. Pensions for senior citizens indemnify against the declining health and poverty in old age; other types of welfare indemnify against catastrophic accident, job loss, and general poverty; law enforcement indemnifies against the loss of life and property by providing a strong disincentive to casual crime, so on and so forth.

    Without this ability to spread risk, it is not possible to develop complex modern societies. That is why modernity and liberalism go hand in hand. You just can’t go beyond a certain level without vast amounts of finance capital and the highly fluid capital markets that manage it, and at bottom that’s what all these Progressive schemes are—financial markets for ensuring social peace. Without that, you might be able to rise to the level of something like renaissance Italy, which was full of art and science and every kind of good thing, but on a rather small scale.

    What I don’t see are very many Traditionalists other than myself who are willing to bite the bullet and honestly admit that doing away with Progressivism means doing away with a lot of modern convenience as well. But actually thinking about that, and having a plan for managing it, is the necessary virtue of the politicians of tomorrow.

    • What I don’t see are very many Traditionalists other than myself who are willing to bite the bullet and honestly admit that doing away with Progressivism means doing away with a lot of modern convenience as well. But actually thinking about that, and having a plan for managing it, is the necessary virtue of the politicians of tomorrow.

      I think for traditionalists, this is a given. They accept the trade-off as part of the core assumptions about how society ought to be ordered. It is why their iconography is not littered with modern gadgets or conveniences. Then you have the myth of progress that lies at the heart of the material arguments in favor of liberalism. Is life better now that billions are networked via the latest Apple smartphone? All the ways we measure the health of a species say no, human life is not better.

      • Amen..and the gadgets will erode what actually makes life good, which is love, family, and community…

    • Prosperity for sure, as Weber and other thinkers have noted in the past.
      Social peace, I’m not so sure. It could be argued that we have more social tension with Progressivism. It could also be argued that minor social tension with Progress is better than major upheavals with Traditionalism (sort of the Taleb “anti-fragile” argument).

      But your overall point is excellent and that’s why we have to think deeply about the intellectual foundations for the next phase.

      • Social tension is a requirement of progressivism. Lacking any, it has to create some. It’s in the name. It has to have something to progress against. The core mandate of progressivism is to “agitate.” (Nelson Mandela said that)

        • It is a core mandate for many, whatever they label themselves. I remember some articles, rather like Gottfried’s piece now, from that year of memeing dangerously, MMXVI, by neocon-adjacent poli-sci prof James Caeser who diagnosed progressives (progressivists?) as ideological freelancers unbeholden to any 19th century ethical concept of moral advancement– everything they said was foreword to a hack operation to collect 51% support in the situation. Thus the ideology of the progressive can’t be coherent but consists of the means to justify their end, which is power for them, which tautologically will be needed for progressive stuff to be done. At a certain point, this becomes pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey quality of analysis.

    • Progressivism is able to provide these things by borrowing from the future to pay for them today. Progressivism fought a war on poverty and didn’t defeat it. Progressivism fought a war for racial equality and it didn’t achieve it. Progressivism, is fighting a war for diversity and inclusion by focused discrimination and exclusion. I could go on and on and on.

      Progressivism is frightened of admitting that its projects have been failures. It is a religion and so it cannot falsify its God by admitting failure which is to admit that you are wrong. The ponzi scheme has a lot of legs and population replacement is the next attempt to prolong default. Like everything about Progressivism, it will create a much larger catastrophe to avoid confronting the catastrophes it has already created. It will do that until it can’t anymore, or the final catastrophe is so untenable that the managers are forcibly removed by the sane.

      Plenty of traditionalists are willing to endure economic pain. The problem is, what tradition meant is holding true to the original ideas of liberalism. Progressivism shattered those by creating an ability to borrow huge sums from the future.

      You can see signs of this changing. Young Brits are starting to sound like and even form bridges with more mainstream adjacent people on the “Dissident Right.” Just the other day I saw one of three pundits on a Lotuseaters podcast say explicitly, “I would rather have a second world standard of living but have my nation, my country, my England than by some abstract GDP reading be a first world nation.”

      Progressivism is trying to cover for its fiscal ponzi scheme by replacing the people of the nations they are supposed to be good for. What that lotuseater guy said is what Traditionalists on the right have been saying for centuries. For the newcomers, our debased material standard of living is a miracle. For the native folk, the debased material standard of living is bad but tolerable, but the destruction of all of the other goods that Progressivism doesn’t bother accounting for, is intolerable.

      And so here you have the source of the conflict that is just getting started. Financiers, (which is who the Progressives really are at the heart of their power) and their invaders and useful idiots, vs Folk.

      The Progressives couldn’t conquer their next gas station with minerals to boot. Having failed doing it by proxy and the old financial arm twisting, they declared war on the Folk who they need to fight their wars via direct confrontation.

      Over in China you have over a billion people and a population of too many young and middle aged men. They have a common identity and a government willing to offer them glory and meaning. In The West, you have purveyors of identity destruction and women in Congress who proclaim, “I don’t want a warrior class”, at least not if it is made up of white men. In The West, to compensate it relies on bribes – more money borrowed from the future. It is going to be a wild ride.

      • Nailed it my dude. I was going to write out a reply similar to this but arguing with Intelligent Daesin is liking arguing with a ‘well credentialed’ tenured college professor. He knows everything there is to know and how all the systems work and the theories and the concepts. Because he read about them all… in a book.

        However, his loafered feet have never touched hard earth. His hands as soft as a baby’s ass, and no experience of what the –reality– of those theories and postulations look like outside the ivory tower of academia.

        He is actually, in that way, right that he is very progressive and liberal. Throw a rock in DC and you will hit an over-educated self important shitlib with the exact same hot take. All coming from a place of profound ignorance but expounding, if only in their mind, profound wisdom’s.

        Like our good Chinese friend trying to work with Africans once said, “It’s all so tiresome.”

    • No, rather it is the reverse. Liberalism erodes material prosperity and state power. Napoleon ended Revolutionary Terror by in part gifting peasants small plots of land which made them indebted to the regime and willing to fight and die for their small plots of land. Parisian intellectuals never forgave him this. Bismarck created the first social security scheme as a way of solidifying regime support, as prior to 1870 “Germany” was a bunch of corrupt, inept statelets where immigration was rife to avoid conscription in a war sure to get the conscripted killed and the war lost (outside of Prussia of course).

      Liberalism is based on: White people being genetically evil and having blood guilt; and the industrial revolution being an existential threat to all life on the planet. It is another Gnostic heresy like the Cathars, Marxism, etc. Kill everyone, start from zero, construct utopia. See: Pol Pot, Sendero Luminoso, etc.

      Liberalism has neither the money, nor the industry, nor the populations to see off the threat of Russia or China or Islam. Biden can do nothing about the Houthis shutting down the Suez Canal because it takes a $1 million missile to shoot down a $1,000 drone. Who can sustain that the most?

      Complex industrial societies cannot survive on the Colors of Benetton. The vibrant diversity being above the law, and the genetically evil dirt people being beneath it, means AT MOST “we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.” Add in energy scarcity and constant unavailability (a feature not a bug of the Green / WEF demands) and you have a society ruled by vibrant rappers and aloha snackbars, with an angry and resentful serf population scheming to get ahead individually by off-books activities like the late stage Soviet Union.

      [During the 1950’s height of the Cold War, careful Western rulers were able to insure prosperity for the common man to see off by way of home ownership and the two cars in the garage the Communist threat.]

    • That is the liberal-enlightenment catechism. Modernism came about because of the abandonment of faith and the embrace of empiricism.

      It superficially coincides with the history of technological development over the last two and half centuries

      Except that it falls apart upon closer inspection. The early scientists were all believers in God and followers of christian praxis. The later scientists and general likewise were believers. They just sublimated the belief in god onto humans collectively and individually. They were also wrong as often as they were correct a out things.

      An alternative explanation is that the west, specifically Britain and then the US stumbled upon the ability to exploit the potential energy of buried hydrocarbons. And all of modernity followed from that. The pioneers of that exploitation were not deep thinking humanists. They were practical tinkerers that basically got lucky with a convergence of needs and capabilities.

      It’s entirely possible that the discovery could have happened within any other religious-political paradigm.

  14. These excellent essays from Gottfried and Duchesne plumb the depths of past thought, hoping vainly to find direction into the future. Our host, always the pragmatist, breaks the intellectual deadlock by saying: “That leaves force as the determining factor”.

    But for me, Duchesne really hits paydirt when he asserts that “The West has no choice but to find an alternative ideology”. Zman is correctly and constantly chiding certain folks for having “negative identities”. But of course this applies to Dissidents too!

    We know for sure what we don’t want, because we’re getting it now. But what do we want? Force might end what we don’t like, but it won’t build a foundation for a new order. This can only come from a positive vision of the future.

    • It recalls the old anti-feminist cartoon of a bunch of women chanting: “What do we want? We don’t know. When do we want it? Now!”

      • Jack Dodson: ““What do we want? We don’t know. When do we want it? Now!””

        Well that’s Cluster B in a nutshell.

    • We want an authoritarian government that will suppress non-Christian faiths (in particular Judaism) and disenfranchise those groups who ought to be disenfranchised. We want war against any who proclaim principles of the Enlightenment; we want hierarchy.

      Pretty simple, really.

        • @Captain –

          It’s a list of things that we want, defining ourselves for who we are. Can’t see it as anything but positive.

      • btp: Personally, I don’t want war with any other polity, regardless of its principles or religion, as long as it leaves my polity the hell alone. Let the Musselman be himself and order his society as he wishes. If the Australians truly want to be a disarmed and controlled populace, that is their business. I would have issues with Canada becoming hindoo, simply because it’s next door and we have a porous border.

        As a Christian, I don’t want to see temples to other alien faiths on our land (like the hindoo monstrosity that has been constructed in New Jersey), but neither do I want to anathematize Whites who are agnostics or self-proclaimed pagans. We don’t have to agree 100% on religious belief or economic minutiae. What we must agree on, however, is identity and boundaries.

        Limits. Who is part of “us” and who is not. What behavior is acceptable and what is beyond the pale. Who can and should have a say and in what matter. All of that falls back on identity and responsibility, rather than bogus and ephemeral ‘rights.’ Hierarchy, racial identity, and personal agency and responsibility. The rest can be worked out amongst men of one’s own kind.

        • @3g4me – I don’t know that there is any living with pagans & atheists. Maybe, but better men than I have decided otherwise – Charlemagne, for example, who finally decided he’d had enough of Saxon shenanigans and forced them to convert.

          And then, there are many ways to suppress these other faiths, with more or less gusto. So, maybe you can be a pagan, but you can’t serve in government. Maybe you can live as a Jew, unmolested, but you can’t be a teacher or work in media or finance and you can’t own property and can’t marry a Christian.

          But this sort of prudence is only possible with some sort of monarchy – probably one that must be elected every generation by local nobles.

          • btp, enough of you Athanasian puritans. You only succeeded in destroying the Arianite Goths, a far finer people than the Hebrew-crazed Catholic imperials, who dreamed only of empire.

            Mind you, it was the Orthodox who stopped the Islamic invasion; the Protestant descendants of the Catholics went on to dream of an empire of their own.

            Charlemagne? The Catholic who conspired with Muslims to attack the original One Faith (before the Schism)? The same bunch who wiped out the Werbergundians who converted Ireland, the Ireland that preserved our ancestral libraries from Islamic fire?

            Christians who worship Jews are the problem to be suppressed. They have learned from their masters the art of betrayal. If a Saxon war king is not fit to the peoples’ benefit, he is overthrown by his own nobles.

          • Sounds cool, let me know when Catholics stop adopting black babies and washing migrants’ feet and I’ll convert.

        • Roger that, 3g.
          For instance, a Jew can be an atheist or religious, but what matters is if they are Jewish.

          I claim the same right for Whites. What one believes is fluid, but what matters is if they support & sustain Whiteness.

          A little shading on the border fringe? Of course. We are a tolerant folk. The frontier was a question that didn’t exist in 1930s Europe.

    • Also, as I read Duchesne’s piece, he inadvertently implies it may be too late for the West to find a new ideology because the resultant atomization has led to a predictable cultural collapse. If I understand him correctly, he further thinks European peoples are hardwired for that very outcome and it is unavoidable. So even if a new ideology could be found and implemented, would it not end the same way? It is sort of “you need a new ideology, even though it may be too late, and expect the same outcome.”

      Duchesne does make me want to read Dugin, who I probably have wrongly dismissed as a crank, because the quoted call for a return to traditionalism makes infinite sense.

      • Yeah Jack, that was my take on Duchesne also. (I will skip Dugin though.) Getting all the cultural toothpaste back into a manageable tube is going to be very hard.

      • IMO the real problem is America.
        America was founded as the liberal aspirational empire.
        Jefferson frankly admitted as much.

        Here’s the rub. Europeans were divided pretty much forever.
        But up through the late 19th century very very few of them existed in liberal states. Even Great Britain, was an explicit empire that prized hierarchy and denigrated the vast majority of their subjects (note – explicitly not citizens).

        It was only in the 20th century with ever increasing domination by the United States that Europe became liberal – and began manifesting all of the social dysfunction of America.

  15. I hate using the words “liberal” or “progressive” for Leftists. Those are there words of self-flattery. They are dippy fools, traitors, tyrants, and hypocrites. Always were. When it seemed Lefties were defeated in the ’80s, the Normie GrillerCons were magnanimous in supposed-victory and never intended to vanquish them; just bring them along with the “rising tide.” Meanwhile, Leftists want to KILL and HUMILIATE their political enemies the second they get power. You simply can’t live with these people and chalk it up as “freedom of speech.”

    The only Leftism I respect is old school economic nationalist Leftism which correctly recognizes that a capitalist/free market society has to be controlled to some degree lest billionaires take all the profits and the power for their own ends at the expense of the people; which they do and are.

    • Those GrillerCons believed in the same liberal principles as their enemies. Let’s face it, the project of the Enlightenment was to dissolve all bonds between people: any bond not freely chosen from moment to moment cannot hold.

      Those Grillers could no more will the destruction of the Left than they could will themselves destroyed: these people all believe the same thing.

    • Excellent, fakeemail; the Leftists and the Kapitalists are both a tragedy of the social commons.

      “economic nationalist” is such a perfect phrasing.

      • There is a long line of conservatives against capitalism on economic and moral grounds. John Calhoun, Theodore Roosevelt, Russell Kirk, Irving Kristol, and Patrick J. Buchanan.

        If u want a country or a people, u must have some form of economic protectionism.

        • Bingo. The Lefties and the GrillerCons both fetishized GDP, so we can rejoice in deficit spending, welfare state, immigration and permanent warfare because it “grows the economy”.

        • I don’t know if I’d characterize Theodore Roosevelt as a conservative. He was a progressive of his time, through and through — the first radical activist progressive President.

          • Bingo. That we so many times categorize a historic figure as an exemplar of conservatism as we wish to practice it today simply belies how far we’ve fallen into the abyss of Leftism.

  16. “In reality, the problem may simply lie in the fact that you cannot have a moral order based on reason.”

    This is a brilliant hypothesis but it ultimately is wrong. The bottom line is there is no moral code, only the projection of force to attain outcomes. You allude to this somewhat. If there were universal moral codes, they would not have to be imposed. This is the same reality as so-called “natural rights.” Mao was right. All power comes from the barrel of a gun. Along the same lines, all moral codes come from the barrel of a gun.

    The Enlightenment gave us a framework that allowed a broad moral code with variations. It failed because ultimately it was still a moral code that has to be imposed. This is where we are as a people–mouthing lies about a phantasmic moral code at gunpoint. If that is to change, if it even can be changed, will require an intelligent embrace of Mao’s dictum, and a willingness to carry it out. The latter part would require harsher economic realities than we presently experience, and the former part an intelligence that has not manifested.

    Fine piece, still.

    • “…there are no standards against which to measure moral claims. That leaves force as the determining factor, which means the moral order is decided by people who see it as their purpose to impose…”

      I’d say both Mr. Dobson and the Zman are in agreement, then.

        • As mom/ dad/ husband/ boss / priest/ tribe / nation ultimately end up replyng to the question of “Why?”: because I said so.

          Unfortunately, all American’s (except slave descendents) at a genetic level, replied to the “obey, because I said so” with a “f-you: I’m leaving”.

          Our government schools stink: f-you, I’m leaving.
          Join the legions: f-you, I’m leaving.
          Vote for the turd sandwich/ giant douche: f-you, I’m leaving.
          Take the jab: f-you, I’m leaving.

          • Mow Knowname: Unfortunately, not anywhere near ‘all’ American citizens said “f**k you.” I totally discount all the magic paper people and alien imports of whatever era. A regrettably large portion of White Americans are fully on-board with government schools, government mandates, and particularly government funding.

            They don’t want to be left alone, they want to be taken care of. To be told what to do. To have all of life’s risks ameliorated. To ensure some mythical ‘fairness.’ And they want to take your labor and money to do so – most ‘murricans innately agree with Marx’s dictum “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

            This is not due to a specifically American weakness, but a human one. The weaker or dumber or bossy or envious man always wants to raise himself up by tearing someone else down. The Levellers were a symptom of a universal instinct.

        • Jack, you’ve helped me understand the moral logic behind “…you cannot have a moral order based on reason. Reason cannot be the authority for how people ought to treat one another…”

          I say this because I see religion as the science of the times, an attempt to reason out the “why” of how things work, of the order of the world.

          Was that reasoning an explanation of the moral order or of the physical order? Only in the White West were both considered, and at the same time.

          Enlightenment gnosticism is the latest attempt; even the archaics such as Egyptian and Persian had an order of the gods, and of Nature.

          Outside of the Aryan footstep the origination question is not asked. I say that is because of the physical reality; the nonwhite nervous systems could not hear what we hear.

          Thus I must agree with “How we ought to act is up to us or our gods.” You cannot teach a dog to read. I submit that the Left are a reversion to the pre-White wiring, that is, before “reason”, and must be left to their own wild territories.

          That is, admittedly, as hard or harder than pushing out foreign invaders. I would start by pushing out foreign influences that are themselves a reversion to pre-White wiring. Those who open the gates, in other words.

          • Quite sharp. The Duchesne piece Z linked made the claim all Europeans, leftists and non, are hardwired to reason in a manner that leads to their own destruction, so while pushing out the foreign influence (and leftists, for that matter) is both desirable and necessary, it is not a silver bullet. I haven’t read Kevin MacDonald’s latest but my perception is that he makes a similar claim.

          • {Oops. Those who open the gates of Toledo, not of Heaven. They don’t have a Heaven; such a concept did not exist outside of the Aryan footstep, simply because they couldn’t hear it.

            Considering what lays beyond the greenhouse wall was inconceivable to them because it wasn’t a part of their physical reality. Their moral order did not consider ascension.

            Thus, any afterlife, to the nonwhites, will only be power in this world. Evem our own who attempt to seize the strongest magic are merely seeking power, in this world. I reject their recruiting.}

          • Thank you again, Jack, I must read the linked pieces. I’d say Duchesne is correct; since we assume others hear what we hear, that is, are wired as we are, we assume all races are equal.

            The philosophers have not worked out the arisal of reverted or disfunctional sub-clades and branches, since and leaving them unable to work out the reason race- and bodies!- exist in the first place. {As part of a larger ecology, one beyond the material.}

  17. Z
    I am usually on board with your stuff. However, this one seems to me to have a gaping logical error in your argument.
    So, “How can an HONEST society/culture claim individual freedom not also religious tolerance.”

    • I think you’re missing it. The American code is absolutist and is expressed very well on all those We Believe signs these people put out front of their house. If you look at the bottom, you see the phrase, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

      Justice, in the American mind, is simply the Enlightenment concept of absolute freedom from constraint of any kind. Any moral code (religion) insisting that women ought to stay home or that men should not engage in anal sex with other men is therefore the enemy. Very straightforward.

      • That’s what I tried to say. You cannot have individual freedom without accepting that others will have a different moral code (gays, transgenders, kill unwanted babies, yes I can try and influence your kids to cut off their body parts, etc), So, if you embrace the concept of individual freedom, others are entitled to their individual freedom, no matter how much you hate or disapprove of it.
        That’s why we have arrived at a critical juncture in this culture. Which of these “truths” that are at odds with each other will win out?
        I have no idea, but it will be interesting to watch. Bread and circuses. Send in the clowns. 😉

  18. I think this is very related to the argument that Charles Haywood seems to be making that it all went south with the Enlightenment. The scientific revolution was so successful when it came to predicting the behavior of the material world that it became to be mistakenly thought that the same methods could be applied to questions of religion and politics and economics. But there is no set of mathematical axioms you can write down about government for example that lead to a sequence of mathematical manipulations that predict the best government is X. What always ends up happening is that the people who are claming to use the so-call “scientific method” in addressing these societal questions just end up claiming that their own prior prejudices have been proven true.

    And to make matters worse – as we see all the time today – the people most likely to push the use of “reason” in deciding social issues don’t have the understanding of science or mathematics to even know if it can be applied to religious and political questions. There’s an old story about Euler and Voltaire of all people – possibly apocryphal but they did interact regularly. Voltaire was a flaming athiest who liked to claim that reason proved God didn’t exist. Euler was a fairly devout Christian. At some point the story goes that Euler told Voltaire that he claimed God didn’t exist, but God is proven to exist because of – and Euler just spouted some kind of mathematical gibberish. Voltaire had no comeback because he didn’t even have enough understanding of science to know that Euler was spouting pure gibberish. That’s the problem that has plagued the so-called use of “reason” ever since. The people who are claiming to use it actually have no real understanding of it.

    • “That’s the problem that has plagued the so-called use of “reason” ever since. The people who are claiming to use it actually have no real understanding of it.”

      …and the people who would refute this absurdity also lack the understanding to do so, to tie that up.

      Brilliant comment.

      • Not to get too esoterically off-track here, but Voltaire was also completely incapable of understanding Leibnitz. His book Candide is supposed to be making fun of Leibnitz’ claim that this is the best of all possible worlds. That Leibnitz was such a dope, because all these things suck!

        I’m no expert on Leibnitz when it comes to philosophy, but I think what he meant was that a thing is possible only if it’s free of contradictions. A “possible” world is one with no contradictions and give that constraint, we have the best possible. You can claim that God should have done a better job on this or that, but God’s reason for doing this or that is to avoid contradictions. The absence of contradiction is actually what makes reason possible in the first place, so Voltaire proved himself ignorant that Leibnitz’ whole point was to defend the very thing Voltaire claimed to treasure.

    • I think it’s worse than you think. The Postmodernists now ascendant reject what you and I consider to be “reason” because its part of a system of thought imposed with force by old white guys. So therefore our notion of “reason” is invalid (the Marcuse/Foucault line of thought). And of course you’re correct that they cannot understand science or math anyway.

      So it’s going to be simian poo-flinging hereafter. To them, Kamala Harris and the Harvard lady are just as valid as Kant and Euler.

  19. The abandonment of Christian morality and tradition has been a disaster for the west. Virtually everything that has been known and understood about the natural world and our relation to it over the centuries by western man has been turned on its head and replaced. Sure, a lot of it was faith based, but is that necessarily worse than what we call “science” these days? Now everybody must recognize that homosexual marriage and the melding of unequal people across the globe is the only way for humanity to carry forward into the future – or else. Women are the same as men in all respects, blacks are the equal of Whites in all respects etc. – hey, we all bleed red. Despite the absolute fact that 99.9999999% all other species on the planet are either male or female and act accordingly, this does not apply to the human race – trust the “science” don’t you know…

    • A lot of the success of science only came about once it came to an agreement about what the fundamental entities of the natural world were. Chemistry began to advance in a serious way only as the periodic table started to be firmed up in the 19th century. Physics refined its concept of the atom from a point object to the current model of clusters of protons, neutrons and electrons. Once it did so it was able to make accurate predictions about the behavior of very small objects.

      Current Leftist social “science” attempts to ape this process of increasingly precise and refined abstractions through a process of denying the differences among races, sexes, and people. The result is an inversion of what real science achieved. Instead of paring away non-essential attributes of things to arrive at a clear and distinct core concept and approach the fundamental truth, the Leftists have discarded the essence of man, woman, society, and the individual to create a blurred mockery of the truth.

      The resulting new abstract deracinated and gender fluid humanoid is useful to them however, because it can fit into their theoretical frameworks. Again though, this whole process is an inversion of the real scientific method. These utopian theories are always arrived at as a priori constructs. They are not the end result of a process of observation and hypothesis testing. It should surprise no one that the results of implementing Leftist “social science” is always a disaster. The various political programs put forward as a way of advancing toward the utopian goal fail because the entities they aim to manipulate simply do not exist in the way the theories state.

  20. Hunger begets a work ethic because the alternative is starvation. Similarly, prolonged affluence begets laziness because abundance solves the hunger problem nearly effortlessly. And at the scale of nations, the latter requires exploitation of weak neighbors in order to keep the plates spinning. Hence the GAE’s desire to control the planet and remain dominant. All the highfalutin BS about democracy and freedom is just Soma to keep the plebs distracted and compliant. We are not going to talk our way out of this dilemma.

    Klaus Schwab and his ilk are few in number but highly effective at running things from the shadows. “You will own nothing and like it.” You cannot beat this evil with a strong debating performance. If that were true, you could talk your way out of Stage 4 cancer. But reality is harsh mistress. Ukraine is the GAE’s bitch and Putin is showing us how to beat those assholes. Take note.

  21. “If you want to know why the West has waged war on Islam and now Eurasia, there is the answer.”

    I doubt that’s the case. This is the swill fed to the proles. If there was any truth to this, the West would have waged war on Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahhabi Islam, where religion and state prop up each other, and where this brand of fanatic and intolerant Islam is aggressively exported abroad.

    Wars cost serious dosh. The wars of choice by the GAE over the last two decades have been resource grabs pure and simple, or equivalently, a dying empire trying to prop up its declining hegemony (but achieving just the opposite). A liberal facade shouldn’t hoodwink anyone.

    Liberalism was fashion attire when times were good. But when things become a little dicey, a little problematic, people go back to family, clan, tribe, ethno-nationalism.

    • In the case of Islam, there was a direct effort not to mention morality. There were a few hamfisted platitudes about “Islam is a religion of peace,” and so forth, but those were batted down in rather short order.

      The attempts to cloak the Ukraine war as a protection of democracy have been so laughable that even the NPC drones have a hard time with it.

      As you point out, it was all about theft and empire.

    • If the many wars of choice were about resources, we would have more resources and the wars would have been conducted in a much different way. For example, Afghanistan has the world’s largest lithium deposits. The GAE did nothing to secure them, going so far as to give the exploitation rights to China. If it was about oil and gas in Iraq, the logical path would have been to make a deal with Saddam or find a suitable replacement strongman.

      I have argued that the Bush wars against the Muslims were about the neocon vision for the world and their bloodlust for Russia, but the general liberal vision also played a part. Fukuyama remains a saint among liberals, despite being totally wrong and an all around nutter. That is because he confirms the liberal vision of the future.

      • “If the many wars of choice were about resources, we would have more resources and the wars would have been conducted in a much different way. ”

        The key there is “we,” no? Those wars resulted in vast wealth for “them.” One of the many reasons for the elite rage against Trump was his suggestion that the oil in Iraq, for example, should have been seized for the common weal. Those wars were prosecuted to enrich a few at the expense of the many, including “us.” While Covid gives it a strong run, the greatest wealth transfer this nation experienced were the wars of choice, some ongoing, that enriched the ruling class and their helpers and ho’s at the expense of the public. It was a top-down redistribution without parallel.

        • eta: Extraction of oil, gas, lithium and so forth were overshadowed by the MIC’s looting and the subsequent rebuilding projects that were at least planned. We got a glimpse of this when Larry Fink and Blackrock surveyed Ukraine for post-war reconstruction projects following on from the military-related largesse. While it was quickly memoryholed, when Zelensky came to the States the first time, he was taken on a literal shopping trip to see what arms manufacturers had on offer. And a reasonable assumption is that, say, China’s extraction of the previously mentioned lithium did accrue to the benefit of the same people albeit in a more subtle way than outright seizure.

          The GAE missed a key takeaway from previous empires: to keep the masses happy, some crumbs have to be thrown their way. The British also fell short on this account compared to previous empires.

      • I wonder if what Fukuyama really represents is the total spiritual degradation of Western pseudo-elites. They are fetishists. They love to find an outsider who will tell them they will or have achieved Nirvana in the form of some sort of abstract, formless idea.

        How many outsiders came in and offered these elected figureheads some flattery and stupidity? I often think the metaphor is Alexander on his re-tracing of the Yamnaya’s territorial conquest/expansion. He became enamored of the other in an Orientalist delusion and LARP. Fortunately for him, his generals and top men mutinied and forced him to return to his senses.

        In democracy, and finanicalism these men bound to the land and thus reality don’t exist. So, there was no mutiny.

        The aristocracy long ago abrogated their claims and stopped resisting. All that is left are the only people still tied to the land and any semblence of tradition and custom – the dirt people. Thus the populist movement. It is up to us to be Alexander’s men – though in this case there is no Alexander to bring back to his senses. But, there are real people and we can follow the receipts to them. In the end, there will have to be a confrontation.

      • The only resource the GAE was cared about in Afghanistan was opium. In 20 years the CIA probably made billions off the poppy harvests there.

      • The wars were about money.

        You don’t need to control resources when you control the creation of the money used to trade those resources.

        Which carries the bonus of obfuscating the control to some amorphous them.

        The wars of choice were all fought to ensure that the dollar remains the worlds reserve currency. The neo-cons and neo-libs jumped onboard for their own pseudo religious reasons. Which plays well for the financial elite in obfuscating the central role of the wars.

        Which is why they engaged Russia in a war in Ukraine – and why they are loathe to admit a temporary defeat there. It won’t be just a military defeat, but a defeat of their financial system – which is very threatening indeed.

Comments are closed.