Randoms

- DC politics is never dull, but there were fewer than 100 murders in the city for the first time in fifty years. More from the most popular official in DC.

- Sailer is interviewed in the Washington Times. The interview covers the basics, but it’s hard to get why his writing is so good, if you don’t read it regularly. There are lots of little topics that he touches on now and then that are fascinating (and that I wish he’d talk about more). For example, he occasionally mentions that certain policies are tolerated in New York that are not tolerated elsewhere (stopping and frisking based on race, for example). Or, the idea that DC elites are open to Hispanic immigration because Hispanics seem so much better than blacks (from my vantage point, this seems right). Someone could write a book about these topics.

- Average Married Dad rounds up manosphere posts from 2012.

- When you think about it, it’s pretty incredibly how fast driverless cars became legal.

- A strategy for permanent resistance against superior forces.

- I also support getting rid of the Constitution. We’ve long since stopped actually following it (or amending it when it gets obviously changed). At this point, pretending that we follow it obscures things more than it helps.

- Fred Reed on cops and criminals.

- How gay is National Review? Pretty damn gay.

- Democracy and monarchy.

- Anyone know how I can get on OneSTDV’s blog list?

About these ads

57 Responses to Randoms

  1. JL02 says:

    Foseti, OneSTDV is out. I quote his email to me from two months ago:

    Site hasn’t been updated since late June and I don’t plan on ever
    coming back to blogging. It’s invitation-only b/c I did not want to
    delete it but not make people think it was still active; though I will
    probably delete it in the future (once I figure out how to save all my
    entries in a nice format and stop being lazy in actually doing that).

  2. anonymous says:

    What other DC statistic is at or near its lowest in 50 years?

  3. I don’t know if Sailer reads me but I wrote a few things about New York some time ago. Briefly, New York is the home and meeting place of the elite and they will not tolerate danger to themselves, so something as blatantly “unconstitutional” as stop and frisk is OK.

    • Foseti says:

      What is their stop-and-frisk really like? What else do they do? I want more on that stuff

      • RS' says:

        ive posted on it here before. dont know how searchable your comments are.

      • I think you would have to spend a lot of time actually observing NYPD foot patrolmen, otherwise you have to rely on what various journalists and activists have written. It’s based on probable cause, but what is probable cause? Police report such things as “furtive movements”. That amounts to “looking suspicious” but they can’t say that of course. It’s necessarily subjective, and what is acceptable depends on who/whom.

      • Handle says:

        This has been Constitutional Law for 45 years. See Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

        This was thought to be both extended some (for automobile compartments) and pulled back some (in terms of legal justification) in 1983 with Michigan v. Long 463 U.S. 1032 when Justice O’Connor wrote that to sustain such activity, the police would, in court, have to articulate the specific (and reasonable) rationale for his suspicions. “Hunch” or “He looked funny” or “I had a gut feeling” wouldn’t cut it in court.

        The problem is, you know, that’s how the trained human mind actually works. When you have a lot of experience with dangerous situations, you may not even be consciously aware of what patterns your neural networks have discovered. You brain will reflexively react to stimuli it has learned to associate with menacing people and circumstances and feed that impulse to you in the form of something like an emotion and queasy physical sensation as your adrenaline and testosterone spike. Soldiers who spot IED’s or avoid traps often report this exact phenomenon. If you ask them, “Did you see the rocks in a pile and think that looked like a bomb?” they’ll answer, “I didn’t notice it like that or think it through, I had a bad feeling and I reacted.” Just like with other reflexes – you can kind of piece all the “legitimate reasons” together after the fact, or like with the patellar reflex – people mess up the chronology and think that they felt the sensation then kicked their leg, when in truth, it’s the other way around, as you can see on any video of the event.

        So what’s a cop supposed to do? “Say the magic words.” There are national police legal-review associations who do nothing but keep abreast of the latest developments in constitutional law and figure out what things, if said on the stand, are most likely to get a guy off or locked up. And they put out regular papers telling police forces around the country what those things are. “Say
        X’, but don’t say ‘Y’” The latest stuff gets taught in police academies and in the regular update training given to all serving officers.

        You’ll never hear an officer say, “Well, he seemed drunk” or “It kind of smelled like weed to me” but instead, “Due to my training and experience, I positively identified the specific facts such as A, B, and C.” (When, of course, everybody know that no such trial-perfect thing actually occurred.) But look, if the legal system if going to impose unreality on the police, the police are going to through bullshit legalistic verbiage right back in its face. The fact is, I think in the last 50 years since the Warren Court – the Police have found their new equilibrium and have mostly won the decades-long arms race.

  4. Simon Grey says:

    “When you think about it, it’s pretty incredibly how fast driverless cars became legal.”

    Really? Driverless cars seem like the perfect nanny state-solution to the problems caused by government micromanagement of transportation (congestion, pollution, traffic delays, traffic jams, etc.) . With driverless cars, the government ensures that people obey stupid, counterproductive laws while also being able to track everyone’s last movements. The extra costs of the system will eventually lead to subsidy and become mandated to everyone, then additional regs will be passed to deal with literal free-riders.

    • Foseti says:

      I’m not saying that driverless cars are a bad idea. I’m just saying that, while lots of things are good ideas, the regulatory obstacles to driverless cars seem to be parting quite quickly.

      • Simon Grey says:

        My point is not that driverless cars are a bad idea (I drive a lot for work, often by myself, and would very much desire a driverless car since it would free me to do more productive thing, like read). My point is that driverless cars can easily be used by the state to control the citizens simply by forcing them to comply with certain regs that do not make sense and are generally counterproductive to their stated ends.

    • Callowman says:

      I think driverless cars would have been pushed into the lead by insurance companies eventually as they became much safer, on average, than driven cars. Even that would have been vexing for very good drivers, who are probably literally 100s of times safer than the average driver. The fact that Google is able to push it through even faster seems like a triumph of corporatocracy, or the nanny state, or crony capitalism or whatever you want to call it.

      • asdf says:

        Lower risk would be bad for insurance companies. They would have to lower premiums.

      • sardonic_sob says:

        asdf: Could be (although they wouldn’t necessarily have to do it commensurately) but driverless cars, when they reach a certain point, will not only be lower risk in absolute terms but the variance will be much lower. Even a human in the sweet spot of risk profiling (married, right age, right kind of car, etc, etc,) can decide to just do something random and stupid one day and cause an expensive loss. Computers don’t do that absent human coding error. And it will be much easier to figure out what went wrong if they *do* do it due to coding error, and the insurer can then deny coverage. They do that to humans now, of course, but it will be much easier with computers.

  5. Jehu says:

    The ADA is the battering ram that will prevent lawfare from killing driverless cars. About the only good thing that the ADA ever did honestly.

  6. LOL, that post by Bruce Charlton reads like a communist manifesto.

    DOING IT WRONG.

    I also love this idea that “true reactionaries” are Christians or vice-versa. Uh, no, it’s the Christians that started this whole Progressive BS, first with that weird Jewish sect, then with the Protestants, then low church dissenters, and finally today’s cryptochristians.

    Bruce proves himself to be just another prog with obscure ideals. Progs talk about resistance, reactionaries talk about where might be nice to emmigrate to next year.

    We’re not at war with Progressivism, nor should we be. Sure, we want to see it defeated (but only if it’s replaced with something better; there are worse things…) but that’s a very different thing. Hell, we’re still rediscovering the writings of Carlyle and friends, we’re in no position to be writing manifestos like we know the way forward.

    • Foseti says:

      I have sort of an on-going low level debate with professor Charlton about who is the real liberal.

      My argument is that he’s the liberal, since he’s Christian and Christianity gave birth to liberalism. His argument is that Christianity is a much narrower term than is commonly understood and that all reactionaries must be Christian – in the very very narrow sense of the word.

      Interesting argument.

      • Federico says:

        Christianity gave birth to liberalism

        I criticise that idea here, and in somewhat droll fashion here.

        Crypto-Calvinism is not a useful perspective. Moldbug makes insufficiently fine distinctions between similar moral beliefs whose consequences are very different, and fails to take into account the canalisation of moral beliefs (which partially explains the resemblance that he notes).

        As for Bruce Charlton, the problem he faces is that God doesn’t exist. :)

      • Doesn’t a certain religion with the concept of a broken world, and the mending thereof – the technical term escapes me! – square quite well with liberalism? A certain prominent Republican donor explicitly mentioned it in an interview, and its secularized form appeared to great and bloody effect in Russia in the early 20th Century.

        A shame us Europeans ever threw out our old gods.

      • asdf says:

        Charlton already covered why secularism is a dead end very well in his mind prison article. There is zero reason for a secular to ever make a serious sacrifice for reactionary causes. As such no secular reactionary cause will ever succeed. Wilhelm puts it succinctly, “reactionaries talk about where might be nice to emmigrate to next year.” And then one wonders why reactionaries control an ever shrinking sphere of influence when their primary concern is where they are going to retreat to.

        Why don’t you convert to political correctness?

        Since you can’t do anything about political correctness, why not just make the best of it?

        Why not exploit the situation instead of moaning about it?
        Do what is expedient – why not?
        *
        Why not make a successful career out of PC – like so many others?

        Why not surrender your private mind to PC, in the same way as you have already surrendered your public behaviour?

        By having any reservations at all, you are making yourself miserable – why not simply cast-aside those reservations?
        Just say an inner yes to what you will, anyway, be forced to do…

        *

        Since you necessarily inhabit the thought prison that is political correctness – then why not, at least, become one of the ‘trustys’ among the inmates – to assist with the smooth running of the gaol, and get yourself a few privileges.

        Why not, indeed, strive to become one of the guards? Somebody has to do the job? Maybe you could temper the severity of the regime?

        And herein lies the particular temptation for the intellectual elite – a temptation few resist.

        That (literally) soul-destroying pragmatism by which (for eminently sensible reasons) we quietly, by gradual degrees, change sides in the spiritual battle of the world: that unseen warfare between The Good and that which opposes The Good.
        *
        Well why not?

        There is no earthly reason why not.

        In a world of pervasive and powerful PC, there is really only one compelling reason for holding back and resisting in any way, shape or form – which is that embracing political correctness will shrink your soul.
        *
        If you do not believe in the soul, this reason will carry no force at all: so by your own calculations you are stupid to resist PC.

        Or, if you believe the soul is inviolable, and that nothing you think or do can affect the soul: then also, by your own calculations, you are stupid to resist PC.

        If you do not believe in Natural Law (innate knowledge of The Good), and that breaking Natural Law harms the soul: then logically you should learn to love PC.
        *
        If you do not believe in the reality of transcendental good – then you might as well go with the flow, allow yourself to be re-programmed: to learn, by regular practice, to re-label lies as truth, ugliness as beauty, evil as virtue; until PC has entered into your heart and soul, as well as pouring into your ears and out-from your mouth.

        *
        But political correctness is nihilism; therefore it is not merely political: it is also existential.

        To fight against political correctness is therefore ultimately an existential act: a battle to preserve the eternal soul.
        *
        But if you do not believe that political correctness will harm your eternal soul: then you would be well-advised to suck it up.

        Why not?…

      • Percyval says:

        Just because liberalism is “descended”, in some sense, from Christianity doesn’t mean that Christians are liberals, I wouldn’t have thought.

        For one thing, the number of religious reactionaries strictly dominates the number of atheist reactionaries. If all Christians are to be considered liberals, then you are committed to the counter-intuitive view that most reactionary figures from western history, in fact, most figures period, were actually liberals.

        For another thing, it’s a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. “Christianity”–meaning, Christian civilization–also gave birth to socialism, communism, fascism, nazism, nationalism, futurism, anarchism, minarchism, dada, surrealism, the Enlightenment, the Counter-enlightenment, Carlyle, consumerism, cricket, science fiction, record collectors, and so on, and so on, forever (or at least, a very long time).

        And by the same logic, since paganism preceded monotheism, paganism gave rise to liberalism, and Christianity is only a proximate link in the causal chain.

        So that everyone ever is a liberal!

      • Foseti says:

        In my mind, the question isn’t whether or not some Christians are reactionary, the question is whether Christianity leads to progressivism.

        My guess is that it does. Do you think it’s just a coincidence, for example, that Massachusetts, long the most puritanical (in the religious sense) state, is now the most progress state?

      • Percyval says:

        I suppose it depends on what you mean by “Christianity leads to”. I certainly agree that Christian civilization has lead to, inter alia, progressivism, secularism, atheism, communism and so on.

      • Matt says:

        Modern liberalism is a christian heresy, but the second word is as important as the first. One trap people fall into is to see liberalism as uniquely evil. Other societies with their own traditions have their own bad ideas, and our bad ideas aren’t necessarily any worse.

      • Foseti says:

        I agree with this Christian heresy view.

      • josh says:

        Progressivism or PC is not a particularly Christian heresy. Mankind keeps having the same debate over and over; natural law which implies a creator and a natural basis for authority, ethics, reason, truth vs. the forces of nihilism. Carlyle identified it as the everlasting yea and the everlasting nay. The same social and political forces cause the same effect in different civilization at different times. If something happens for a reason, expect it to happen again.

        PC is the particular nihilism that grew out of the Christian world, that doesn’t mean the Christian world is any more vulnerable to this particular kind of disease than the Confucian or Classical. Feudalism also developed its highest form in the Christian world. Did Christianity destroy Athens too?

      • josh says:

        Perhaps, look at it this way.

        Christianity became the dominant intellectual/social force in the western world as Rome was falling. For more than a millenium, the western world moved to a more formalized more, hierarchical social structure, with more natural law based laws and ethics, and a firmer belief in absolute truth, the value of traditional lifeways, the particularism of nations and peoples, and *everyone* agreed that the world was becoming *more* Christian.

        Since the early developments of progressivism, there has been general agreement that the world is becoming *less* Christian. In fact, the vanguard after a very few generations has gained almost unanimous agreement that there beliefs are in fact, *completely incompatible* with Christianity, and thus they disdain to call themselves Christian.

        Of course, progressivism, grew out of the Christian world. Everything in the west grew out of the Christian world. That doesn’t make Christianity the cause. The cause is something more fundamental about human nature. The amazing thing is that the Christian world was able to chain the devil down as well as it did for as long as it did.

      • asdf says:

        Thank you josh.

  7. Allan says:

    You want to get rid of the Constitution?
    The First Amendment will be the first to go, of course.
    You OK with that?

    • Foseti says:

      It’s already gone (just like the 9th and 10th, for example – these are just some of the absurdities, not to mention the 14th, which allowed abortions 110 years after it was passed, obviously).

      There are all kinds of things that are factually true that you can’t say if you want a job, for example.

      • Allan says:

        Yes we all know
        there are many things we cannot say
        except behind closed doors
        (even that may be risky)
        However the first amendment still provides an inhibiting factor.
        How long do you suppose your blog would last without it???

      • Allan says:

        Incidentally
        I live in a country that has no ‘First Amendment’
        and I can tell you
        there is a BIG difference

  8. dearieme says:

    Countries are run according to their constitutions. The US has within its constitution The Constitution, of which a great fuss is made. It’s a fine document but it has proved too hard to live up to so it’s been abandoned in stages ever since the Louisiana Purchase. Whether there would be an advantage, and to whom, in acknowledging the fact I don’t know.

    • Tarl says:

      Ultimately, this amounts to an argument that because people break the law, the law should be abandoned. It is not “too hard” to abide by the Constitution any more than it is “too hard” to obey any other law — and the existence of people who refuse to obey the law does not disprove this.

      The solution to criminals (or people who don’t want to live under the Constitution) is not to abandon the law (or the Constitution) but to enforce the law (the Constitution).

      If we abandon the Constitution because it’s “too hard”, what will replace it? And why will people obey that, whatever it is?

      • dearieme says:

        That’s a great unanswered question about democracies. Can even a Constitution as carefully debated as the US’s was by its creators really work for a sustained period?

  9. rjp says:

    Driverless cars are not the adaptive technology fix for the less able that they are being portrayed as.

    Who is going to park the thing whn the blind man gets to his destination? What happens when his assigned space is being used by another another vehicle? What happens when scofflaws are using the handicapped wheelchair van parking spaces?

    Are there going to be government mandated driverless car parking lots?

    Driverless cars are about complete control. If Google is involved, you can bet that they are not all about “the good …”.

    Google only see the opportunities for gas stations and the like paying for traffic when the “Get Gas” button is pushed, by directing the car to the highest bidder.

    How will alternate routes be decided or will there just be “preferred routes”?

    What happens to all the livery / cab drivers who we seem to have been imported to this country in the last 15-20 years? Who will own the driverless cabs? The city (of Chicago)? Or will the city (of Chicago) give them to Morgan Stanley via sweetheart 75 year leases?

    Foseti may get in his car one day, hear the doors lock, the car start upon it’s way when the car suddenly says “You have an unpaid ticket for which a warrant for your arrest has been issued. We will now proceed to to the police department”. Foseti replies, “I have to use the washroom first”. Car says “Ha ha ha ha …..”.

    Or what about when some urban gang somehow manages to acquire the technology that will allow it to activate the kill switch which will no doubt be a “feature”.

    And what happened to the hovercrafts we were all supposed to be driving by now?

  10. Thanks to those above who made a better shot at ‘defending’ my views that I would have done myself!

    My book Thought Prison is now available free online at:

    http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk/

    That puts my argument about the fact that the only real actual lived-reactionaries are religious reactionaries (not necessarily Christian – e.g. they could be Jewish, and the majority in the world today are Moslem) – and also my refutation of the Christianity-leads-to-progressivism meme (which is refuted by the 1000 years history of the utterly reactionary Eastern Roman Byzantine Christian Empire).

  11. PA says:

    Progressivism is simply an alliance of an aggressively ambitious upper class minority and the underclass agains the middle classes. It would have happened with or without Christianity, except the rationalizations would have been different had Europeans never become Christian.

    It’s easy to overestimate a religion’s influence on a population. When a people convert to a religion, they adapt its doctrines — and bend their practice of it — to their particular preexisting temperament, rather than the other way around.

    • Tarl says:

      “It would have happened with or without Christianity” — except there would be no large middle class without Christianity, and thus no need for the upper classes to align with the underclass against them.

    • Tarl says:

      From Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s “Leftism”:

      “The reader might feel inclined to believe that our emphasis on theological (“religious”) ideas, movements, and arguments so far are merely due to the profoundly religious character of
      the Middle Ages. This is by no means the case. Looking way back at the tragedy of Socrates we see clearly how it was largely conditioned by an intermingling of political, philosophical, and religious sentiments and concepts. This interconnection persisted during the first 1,700 years of Christian history whereas in the last 200 years it has become evident that the isms cannot coexist peacefully with theistic religions, but have to fight them with all the means at their disposal. And vice versa. It is precisely this fact that the modern totalitarian ideologies- from simple leftism to national socialism, international socialism, and communism -have not only a pseudomonastic but also a “heretical” aspect that make them so unacceptable and so incompatible with the great religions of the West: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They derive most of their strength, as we shall see later on, from the secularized version of a few Christian tenets. Therefore they are all Religionsersatz (substitutes for religion) and the parties representing them are secular “churches” with hierarchies, rituals amounting to a real liturgy , secular equivalents to the sacraments, “orders,” (general) confessions, ministries of propaganda, a system of worldwide missions, etc. The efforts to draw comparisons between the Vatican and the Kremlin are usually made in a spirit of hostility, but they are not without substance if we bear in mind that the various isms, as fundamental heresies, are indeed evil caricatures of fragments of Christian doctrine, of Christian institutions. Our isms could not have grown, in the first instance, on non-Christian soil even if they can be transferred to such areas where Christianity is not indigenous. The reason for the latter phenomenon is twofold: All human beings have a “naturally Christian soul” (anima naturaliter Christiana) and the entire globe is in a process of Westernization, i. e., of accepting secular forms of Christianity.”

      “The temptation to inject Christian precepts into the practical order in such a naive way that they become self-defeating is especially great in a society where Christian trends have a sentimental and historic basis. Socialism and communism, though able to invade areas without a Christian tradition, could have been born only of civilizations with a strong Christian background. And not only the ethical content of Christianity fosters and promotes the temptation toward socialism, but also much of Christian imagery and doctrine. Along the path of the socialist utopia lies a day of judgment when the humble will be exalted and the rich and mighty brutally dispossessed. And from the Socialist-Communist utopia itself can be gleaned the picture of paradise lost-and regained: a new age of innocence, of peace and brotherly love, with envy, crime, and hatred banished forever.”

  12. RS' says:

    > there is really only one compelling reason for holding back and resisting in any way, shape or form – which is that embracing political correctness will shrink your soul.
    &&If you do not believe in the soul, this reason will carry no force at all: so by your own calculations you are stupid to resist PC.

    do you believe in rock & roll can music save your mortal soul and can you teach me how to dance real slow

    • RS' says:

      I wish men would begin by r e s p e c t i n g themselves: everything else follows from that.

      • RS' says:

        lol that is the german means of emphatic type, or was in nietzsche’s time, im pretty sure it appears in all his books as originally brought out in german. in the MSs it is underlining

        i didnt realize what overtones of aretha franklin it would give in english

        the german type of that time was a rather lovely fraktur which i dont think italicizes too well. while i think hitler decided at some point that the fraktur was ‘jewish’, i have seen its replacement after the war described as being associated with feelings of total defeat, and accordingly moving on from home tradition.

      • RS' says:

        now why is this relevant — for one thing when i learned it it made his tone seem a hair less shrill than it otherwise can seem at times. i mean spaced letters have a different feel than italics.

        i try to bear it in mind as i have only rarely looked at any of the texts in german, since my ~5,000-word vocabulary permits me to read neither that, nor, anything whatosoever really.

  13. Matt says:

    This is apparently a topic in its own right, but it’s more accurate to say that Christianity did lead to liberalism rather than it must. By ‘lead to’ I mean that when Christianity was abandoned, it was abandoned for the post-Christian heresy of liberalism rather than another religion. Imagine if, for instance, Arianism took off and subsumed the whole Western world. We wouldn’t then say that Christianity necessarily leads to Arianism, because another historical path could have been taken in which Arianism was subdued, as in our actual history. But at the same time Arianism just doesn’t exist without Christianity.

    Too many on the right use this as a stick to beat Christianity with because they don’t like it. And it’s true that there are more universal tendencies in human nature that can lead a never-Christian society to do some of the same things as Western liberals do. And it is also true that there are all sorts of horrible ideas and ideologies that spring from all manner of zeitgeists, even blood and soil ones. Which is why I said above that liberalism should not be viewed as especially evil–it’s just, like Arianism, another bad idea in a neverending litany of them. Such is humanity.

  14. Samson J. says:

    @rjp:

    If Google is involved, you can bet that they are not all about “the good …”.

    This is an extremely worthwhile point. What’s all this about driverless cars, anyway? Is there such a thing on the road in general use right now, outside of a mad wizard’s experiment?

    Do you think it’s just a coincidence, for example, that Massachusetts, long the most puritanical (in the religious sense) state, is now the most progress state?

    I actually do think this is a coincidence, or at least, I don’t see any prima facie reason to think there’s a connection. I’ve thought this meme to be strange every time I’ve seen it floating around (which is fairly often).

    @Wilhelm Durand:

    We’re not at war with Progressivism, nor should we be.

    Who’s “we”? We Christians are certainly at war with Progressivism, because Progressivism is at war with us. As far as I’m concerned, all you and Foseti have shown here is that superficialities notwithstanding, you’re not on *my* side.

    I also love this idea that “true reactionaries” are Christians or vice-versa.

    Well, it depends on what you’re “reacting” back to. We are “reacting” back to the standards God has set out for mankind. Our definition of reaction thus has an objective foundation. You are “reacting” back to… whatever appeals to you this year. I suppose when your worldview has no objective authority, you can make things like calling Charlton a “liberal” make sense to yourself. Count me out of that sort of “reaction”.

    Look, the question of who is the “true” reactionary is not that interesting, because it can’t be solved or agreed-upon between people of differing worldviews. As with many other things, an objective definition depends on the underlying foundation. If Christianity is true – and it is – then of course Christians are the true reactionaries and vice-versa. If you reject the Christian faith, then feel free to make “reaction” and “liberalism” mean whatever you want them to mean. We will never agree.

    Arguments that occur because of a difference in underlying premises usually waste an awful lot of time accomplishing nothing.

    • Foseti says:

      It would be the most incredible coincidence in history if it just so happened that the most zealously religious parts of the country in one generation became the most progressive a few generations later and these things were *totally* unconnected.

      • PA says:

        Maybe some people are predisposed to zealotry no matter what religion they wave as their flag.

      • Josh says:

        Who said they were unconnected?

      • josh says:

        To expand; the parts of the country most closely connected with the institutions that form the basis of elite thought continued to be so.

        From what I gather, the important point of the Christian heresy hypothesis is that the essential seeds of progressivism are found in Christian doctrine. I disagree with this. What is essential and malignant about progressivism is its permanent state of rebellion against natural order. This is not something found in Christianity, it is something found in man. It is called “pride”. It is, in fact, the greatest of all sins according to Christianity. So how did we get here?

        Christ founded a Church and gave that Church authority. This is an indisputable fact within the Christian religion. There have been many heretical groups over the centuries, but we are specifically concerned with what became progressivism. This was the result of a rebellion against the authority of the Church.

        Bruce thinks this was largely a good thing because it led to a temporary increase in piety and focus on Christ’s message. He is right, but it also led to an arms race of competing Churches where success meant appealing to peoples pride and ambition. Progressives are the apostates of the apostates of the apostates of the apostates of a religion. The apostasy has obviously not been driven by fundamental Christianity, but fundamental human qualities as the essential aspects of this apostasy are so anti-Christian that the apostates themselves no longer desire the moniker.

        What are the essential aspects of this apostasy? Apostasy itself! After centuries of rebellion, rebellion itself is enshrined as a cardinal virtue and authority as such is a deadly sin. Christ, you may recall was under authority.

        The other essence of progressivism? Pride itself! After centuries of appealing to man’s pride, it is enshrined in his new religion of self love. He is the measure of all things. Equal freedom for human wills. Libido dominandi.

        Did this grow out of the Christian tradition? Yes. Specifically, it grew out of the systematic rejection of the Christian religion in a social order that had rejected formal heirarchy (also found explicitly in the Christian religion) and was reduced to playing permanent war over power via status games.

        Jim is wrong too. He believes that status games were based on being more pious than thou. Really they were based on convincing people that there own pride was really a form of piety and that supporting you would lead to their own vices being acclaimed as virtues. And here we are.

      • @Josh

        Superb analysis – very helpful, thanks.

        I would add that there has been apostasy in most of the major Christian denominations of which I have knowledge – but for different reasons.

        Eastern Orthodox apostasy is usually a consequence of a corrupt state – since the church is inextricably entwined with the state, and will only function properly in an Orthodox Monarchy on Byzantine lines – otherwise the Orthodox church gets dragged down by the state, to varying degrees. Under Communism the Orthodox church became Communist (thus atheist) etc.

        But Roman Catholicism and the Protestant denominations are usually corrupted by the pride of intellectuals: Catholicism mostly by the pride of philosophers (from Abelard onwards); and Protestant groups mostly by the pride of Biblical historical and linguistic scholars (especially from David Strauss onwards) – and their continual re-’translations’ and reinterpretations of Scripture which continue apace (e.g. NT Wright’s recent ‘discovery’ of scriptural ‘evidence’ for real female priests in the early church, something that everyone else had amazingly failed to notice for 2000 years…) .

        So, in the West (as Josh says) it has been intellectuals, aways intellectuals, who led apostasy and this continues – and the cause has been pride – that worst sin to which intellectuals are most prone and prone more than others (and the reason why the Bible so often emphasizes that chidlren and simple people are more likely to attain salvation).

        The vast scale of modern Western Apostasy is therefore a consequence of the unprecedented influence of intellectuals (e.g. as described in The Bell Curve), and of the (chosen, sinful) apostasy of intellectuals.

        That modern intellectuals have made such a shabby, sloppy, dishonest, ugly, anti-virtuous, sensationalist, anti-intellectual and careerist public world from their vast influence is (partly) a consequence of their (our) own apostasy and consequent lack of coherent standards (see After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre for the general argument of how this has played-out in terms of morality).

  15. Fake Herzog says:

    Happy New Year!

    One of my goals this year is to blog more and you are my role model (I was thinking about Sailer, but let’s face it, he’s in a league of his own). There are probably only one or two bloggers out there who are as consistently as good as you. When I read your review of the Ian Smith bio, I wanted to run, not walk, to the library and snap it up. You’ve been on fire this past year — keep up the good work.

    Like Bruce, I think you should become a Christian, although I’m not as reactionary as Bruce, so maybe that just supports your views!

    P.S. That National Review Corner item seemed like one of those links they have to warn their readers, “get a load of what the liberals are up to these days”, not some sort of endorsement of the crazy Hugo Schwyzer.

  16. Firepower says:

    If you want to get on OneSTDV’s blog list
    Flatter his own style
    Just mimic Steve Sailer
    The Greatest Blogger of Our Time
    And write revelations on how
    Black People Are Dangerous

  17. Tarl says:

    More from Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s “Leftism” apropos of Leftism as a Christian heresy:

    “As one can see, it would be the eminent task of Christianity to fight the leftist temptation in the world and in ourselves, but the untimely crisis of Christianity, not only but above all in the Catholic Church, is the most glaring of all present defaults. Triggered off by a wrong interpretation of Vatican lIon the part of the Catholic and secular press, the crisis has a predominantly theological nature, not among the still conservative flock, but among priests, monks, nuns, hierarchs, “intellectuals.” It produced a theology of the beaten dog, with resentment-loaded argumentations characterized by purely negative “antipositions.”

    We are here faced with an evil spirit flattering and courting the world; the peremptorily demanded concessions to the world are mostly incompatible with the character of a great religion. Leftist poisons, the nearly total immersion in “social thought” and in “social action ” have created an impasse in Christianity depriving it of its magnetism precisely for those who most thirst for the supranatural and the eternal. A leading French Dominican who declared during a lecture in Sao Paulo that he suspects God to be rather on the side of the Communists than of the capitalists, and that he is not at all unhappy about this state of affairs, expresses very much the spineless spirit of a “changing faith in a changing world,” with an unfettered libido for
    corporate survival which disgusts the faithful and causes contempt among the enemies of Christ. Here indeed lies a real responsibility of Christianity, of all Christian faiths toward the rest of the world. By giving up basic positions, by relinquishing their role of defenders of freedom, by becoming prototalitarians, relativists, and drifters, they jeopardize the very center of our culture and civilization, its heart and soul-the Christian minority. Polite doubt or relativism, on the other hand, will neither lead to “progress” nor protect us against the assaults of the organized or unorganized left, old or new.

    Man is willing to die only in the service of genuine convictions, for an exclamation mark, not for a question mark. And since we are touching here upon the “rather dead than Red” formula, we must remember that in history man’s readiness to die for ideas and ideals has always been the most decisive factor. There is victory, there is noble failure, and there is also defeat in ignominy. One thing, however, is absolutely certain and this precisely from a Christian point of view: We have no right to offer our throat meekly to the assassin-because we are permitted to tempt neither friend nor foe.”

  18. google says:

    artikelnya sangat informatif sekali..terimaksih banyak

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers

%d bloggers like this: