Category Archives: liberalism

Thomas Jefferson: Revolutionary: A Radical’s Struggle to Remake America

In our present Age of Social Justice, study of America’s founders, if it’s being conducted at all, can be summed up in hashtags. The centuries of hard won wisdom which the founders sought to institutionalize through the creation of a constitutionally limited democratic republic are reduced down to a collection of puerile slogans.  The central propositions of individual liberty, property rights, limited government and equality under the law are routinely denigrated as a system of white supremacist, patriarchal colonialism by the academic intelligentsia. Of all our nation’s founders, the one whose entire legacy is increasingly subject to reductionist caricature is Thomas Jefferson. Thanks to a steady drumbeat of smug, ahistorical SJW revisionism from artists and academics alike, Jefferson is likely to be perceived merely as the guy who had sex with his slave to the average American. 

The prevalence of these leftist cartoons is exactly what makes Kevin Gutzman’s new book about Jefferson such an essential read. Thomas Jefferson: Revolutionary is a tour through Jefferson’s thought. Specifically, it highlights what distinguishes him from other national founders and why he lives up to the designation “revolutionary”.  These core ideas include federalism, freedom of conscience, colonization, racial assimilation, and the establishment of the University of Virginia. Gutzman’s exhaustively researched book gives us a portrait of a true Renaissance Man; a man whose depth of genius extended beyond his corpus of political thought and spanned every discipline from architecture to anthropology and archeology. As wonderful as Gutzman’s reading of the Jeffersonian record is, it also illustrates the myriad ways his legacy has been overrun, hijacked and discounted. 

The first section of the book focuses on the Jeffersonian idea of federalism, and the various ways he fought for it throughout his political career. Federalism is more commonly known as “state’s rights”, but Jefferson’s concept was even more radical than the narrow construction to which we’re presently confined. For Jefferson, it meant that the federal government was strictly constrained by the powers enumerated in the Constitution and that anything that was not expressly within federal purview would redound to the states. He stood by this principle throughout his political career, and it put him at odds, often acrimoniously, with Federalists like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. From his stinging rebuttal to the Hamiltonian Bank Bill to his opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts, what emerges is an unbroken line of thought which distinguishes Jeffersonian federalism. Time and again, Jefferson appealed to a strict construction of the Constitution. Specifically, he emphasized the power reserved by the States enshrined in the 10th Amendment, whether to enforce federal law. It might be easy for the modern academic to take Jefferson’s stance towards the Missouri Crisis as an endorsement of slavery, but it should be viewed as evidence of his steadfast adherence to this principle.

Though Jefferson formed what are technically the ideological roots of the modern Democratic Party, I am doubtful you’ll find a single modern progressive who subscribes to the belief that the Constitution is to be strictly constructed or that federal power should be constrained in any way.  One need look no further than the treatment Neil Gorsuch received in his confirmation hearing to see how the Left views a strict reading of the Constitution. 

His defense of federalism during the Missouri Crisis dovetails into the subsequent section which explores his equally fervent belief in freedom of conscience. Just as he believed the federal government had no jurisdiction over an individual State’s sanction of slavery, he fought just as hard to ensure that the State held no power to compel thought of any nature. Especially in matters of faith.  

Any modern progressive who’s championed the separation of Church and State owes a debt of gratitude to Jefferson. Gutzman chronicles the numerous pieces of legislation penned by Jefferson which actively severed the State’s ability to compel any form of Christian teaching or ritual. Jefferson’s ultimate legislative triumph which culminated his thought and enshrined the church-state separation was The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Jefferson’s insistence on severing Church and State didn’t go down so well with some of the more devout Americans.  Like the hysterical tantrums of the contemporary progressive Left, New England Congregationalists voiced their opposition to Jefferson’s candidacy in 1800 in the most hyperbolic terms. If you took Timothy Dwight’s paranoid rantings and replaced the Biblical references with the Left’s infantile memes bemoaning the demise of Democracy, the net result would be the same. Opposition to liberty never changes, apparently. Only the slogans. 

The purge of all things Jeffersonian from the historical record is easily understood. The current Social Justice Cultural Revolution is pathologically fixated on slavery, racism, and all forms of oppression real and perceived. Many prominent historians have revised their positions on Jefferson downward as PC sentiment rises. Besides being a slave owner, Jefferson held some views which were rather controversial. His advocacy for human liberty was seemingly completely at odds with being a slave owner. It’s easy to look through a contemporary lens and condemn him for holding these views. Gutzman doesn’t sugar coat Jefferson’s thought, but he takes a more even handed approach than his contemporaries.

Jefferson’s written record indicates that he held views that were, in fact, supremacist in nature. With respect to the emancipation of blacks, Jefferson viewed colonization as the preferable alternative to integration fearing that America might see a Haitian-style slave rebellion of its own. He contended that blacks stood a better chance of achieving the type of self-government for which he fought within the context of an ethnically and culturally homogeneous society rather than a mixed one. In this respect, Jefferson was a sort of proto-Richard Spencer.  

Gutzman takes the view that Jefferson’s thinking on this topic was unenlightened and that blacks, by and large, view American ideals with respect and forbearance. I believe he is largely correct, but I am also inclined to believe that the Ta-Nehisi Coates’ of the world will continue to exploit Jefferson and his legacy to fuel their own grievance industries. 

Another popular lamentation actively cultivated by the progressive grievance machine is the treatment of the Native American population at the hands of the Founders. Jefferson’s views towards the Native Americans were oddly contrary to those he held towards the black population since he believed them to be equal in mind and body to the white man. Though it will doubtless do little to assuage the merchants of American antipathy, his policy was hardly the agenda of genocide that you’re likely to hear from the more hysterical voices. Jefferson held that Native Americans had a “right of preemption” against other nations which entitled them to acquire or dispose of property rights through contract or, if necessary, war. Native Americans eventually assimilated American values which were due in no small part to economic and agricultural policies enacted by Jefferson. However, the eventual dispossession of the Native American land is also directly attributed to Jeffersonian doctrine. Just as with the black population, one wonders whether the lamentations of cultural destruction which emanate from Native American activist circles will ever be put to rest.

Thomas Jefferson’s quest to expand primary and higher education through the creation of the nation’s first university was largely geared towards the preservation of republicanism, creating civic cohesion and building what he described as a “natural aristocracy”.  Reading what he wrote about the importance of public education, his rhetoric bears at least a superficial resemblance to progressives like Horace Mann or even Bernie Sanders. Jefferson believed that true populist republicanism could only be preserved through a general elevation of public knowledge.  Needless to say, public education is now an unchallenged article of faith amongst the electorate, but Jefferson didn’t share the progressive belief in the institutions as the engines of human perfection.

Jefferson’s views towards the education of young girls will not endear him to the feminist intelligentsia.  Nor would his insistence that the UVA ethics professor teach the proof for the existence of God curry favor with the atheist crowd.  What mattered to Jefferson is that education serve the greater goal of building a civic minded youth culture. 

Is Yvette Felarca the type of public educator Jefferson envisioned best equipped to instill an appreciation for republicanism? Is the Black Femininities and Masculinities in the US Media course offering at UVA building the type of “natural aristocracy” for which Jefferson hoped? Or is it building a different kind of aristocracy?

Dr. Gutzman’s reading of the Jefferson legacy is the antidote to the hegemony of the Ron Chernows and Doris Kearns Goodwins of the world. As much the elite might want to consign the Jefferson legacy to the #SocialJustice Memory Hole, Gutzman’s book reminds us that Jefferson’s thought is hardwired into America’s genetic code. Jefferson was not a saint nor are his ideas beyond criticism or reproach. But that shouldn’t preclude a vigorous reexamination of his record and a reappraisal of his ideas in an age of ever expanding state power and the overwhelming dominance of PC multiculturalism. If anything, the Jefferson legacy leaves us with questions. Can a genuine republican nationalism be created in a multicultural society?  Is it even possible to forge a multicultural, Jeffersonian style republicanism when the progressive intelligentsia have an ongoing incentive to foment antipathy towards American thought? I, for one, am hopeful that this book is the catalyst for that discussion. 

  

Voltaire: Candide

François-Marie Arouet, better known to the world as Voltaire, was an author, philosopher, and provocateur extraordinaire. Rooted in a fervent belief in freedom of thought, he repeatedly broached subjects deemed forbidden by authority, and became the living embodiment of secular Enlightenment values. Candide was the novella that earned him his eternal infamy. The scorn he directed at the Catholic Church would scarcely raise an eyebrow today, but other aspects of the novel would arguably be just as, if not more scandalous now if he attempted to publish it today.  In addition to its brutal depictions of rape and violence, Candide is a vicious satire of Leibniz’ philosophy of optimism. It’s filled to the brim with barbed criticisms of religious leaders, military culture and government officials, but delivered under the breezy veneer of a simple romantic adventure.

With Candide, Voltaire set out to skewer what he perceived to be the false piety and facile moralizing of the institutions and authorities of his day. He was one of the original trolls of Western civilization who canonized a spirit of irreverence that’s found throughout the ages in the works of Jonathan Swift, Oscar Wilde, Lenny Bruce, and presently, Milo Yiannopolous.  Though Milo is routinely compared to Voltaire, I believe this comparison to be only partially true. Voltaire’s provocations are analogous to Milo’s in the sense that he offended prevailing sensitivities, but the targets of his ridicule, specifically his barbs directed at Jesuits and Christianity, feel like Maheresque precursors of the now shopworn clichés of atheists and the Left.

Though superficially a bildungsroman, the ultimate object of Voltaire’s ridicule was Leibniz’ Theodicy which was expressed through Candide’s mentor, Pangloss. “This is the best of all possible worlds,” Pangloss tells Candide from the luxurious confines of Castle Thunder-ten-tronckh in the kingdom of Westphalia. After being banished from the castle for getting a little too hot and heavy with the Duke’s niece, Cunégonde, Candide is beset by one misfortune after another as he traverses through Europe and the New World. Candide finds the naïvete of his wordview repeatedly challenged as he tries to reconcile the message of his mentor with the cruel reality of life outside castle walls. 

Though he was a professed deist, the religious dogma, fanaticism, and hypocrisy of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all sent to Voltaire’s literary guillotine throughout the book. Candide leaves no religious cow un-slaughtered.

Candide translates to “optimism”, and above all else, Voltaire sought to poke Leibniz’ vision of optimism squarely in the eye.  Voltaire saw this philosophy as hopelessly naïve and an inadequate lens through which to view the horror and depravity of the world. One can certainly appreciate that this work was deeply transgressive in its day, but Voltaire’s critique feels like little more than a petty gripe rooted in a failure to grasp the essence of Leibniz’ message. Of course the world is filled with depravity, suffering and hardship. These phenomena exist because they test the faithful. Rather than being an excuse to engage in self-deception through recitations of vacant aphorisms, I suspect Leibniz promoted this philosophy as a way of embracing the totality of life, good and bad. It’s far more challenging to find reasons to be hopeful about humanity when you’ve seen it at its worst. Can you find a reason to be hopeful after your home has been devastated by an earthquake?  Can you find forgiveness and happiness after you’ve been brutally violated? Voltaire eventually resolves this conflict with a very modest aphorism of his own, but he seems to view this philosophy as something shallow, enervating and mind numbing rather than being a lens through which to view even the worst human suffering.

Voltaire is particularly scathing in his treatment of the Jesuits. Upon arrival in South America, Candide and his manservant, Cacambo, avoid being served as the main course in a tribal cannibal feast after calmly explaining to them that neither was, in fact, a Jesuit and that he had just impaled his Jesuit brother.  On these grounds alone, Candide and Cacambo are spared this gruesome fate.  It’s droll gallows humor, and he’s obviously having a bit of rude fun at the expense of the numerous Jesuit missionaries who ventured to South America in the 17th and 18th centuries, but he also appears to hold that appeals to reason are universal regardless of cultural or language differences. This strikes me as proto-SJW Kumbaya fantasy.

Voltaire’s view of Islam was largely negative, and the one aspect of the story that would most assuredly arouse a shitstorm of scandal to this day would be his portrayal of the Muslims. Candide is eventually reunited with Cunégonde only to discover that she was raped and maimed at the hands of the Bulgars. But just when you think it can’t get any worse, their new companion, the illegitimate daughter The Princess of Palestrina and Pope Urban X, tells her tale of woe. Known only as the old woman, she recounts a blood curdling tale of her rape by a “loathsome Negro”, and her mother’s brutal murder at the hands of the Muslims. Since Islam and the effects of Muslim immigration remain a political third rail, this aspect of the book would easily arouse controversy today if anyone in any academic setting were actually reading it.

But that’s not the only thing that would draw the ire of the contemporary Thought Police. His treatment of Don Isaachar has drawn accusations of antisemitism and that most ghastly of contemporary ThoughtCrimes: RACISM. Don Isaachar is one of Cunégonde’s early captors, and is portrayed as greedy and immoral.  I don’t find it particularly antisemitic since it’s not out of the question that Jews like Don Isaachar existed. Voltaire is an equal opportunity offender and he is just as harsh on the Catholic Inquisitor and the Muslims. Besides, like every other manufactured outrage, it doesn’t make sense to judge yesterday’s art against today’s warped standards of Social Justice propriety.

Candide’s arrival in the fabled land of Eldorado certainly suggests that Voltaire was sympathetic towards socialist thought and had utopian notions of his own around how society could look if Enlightenment ideals could be expressed in his ideal monarchy. The citizens of Eldorado have an advanced economy with a dedicated scientific class, public institutions, housing, and art. They have access to precious stones and metals, but they are unmotivated by the accumulation of wealth and give them freely to Candide.  In this respect, one detects the unmistakable seeds of proto-progressive economics, scientism and other related doctrines of social reform.

When Candide finally meets the one man who allegedly “has it all”, Signor Pococurante, Voltaire uses it as another opportunity to make fun of another coddled elitist, but it also betrays a certain cynicism towards the philosophical and cultural legacy of the West which now pervades the modern Left. Candide is dumbstruck as Signor Pococurante dispenses one blistering criticism after another towards every art form and philosophical work of importance. Voltaire wants to tear away at what he perceived as a false veil of deference towards these allegedly Great Works, but like his treatment of Leibniz, it feels slightly misplaced. Signor Pococurante sounds like a jaded hipster or academic progressive who listens to NPR, acquired a liberal arts degree, and has very specific, and mostly negative opinions about everything in the cultural sphere. One could take all of Signor Pococurante’s snide remarks, drop in a couple references to bell hooks, Howard Zinn and Judith Butler, and he’d sound just like a garden variety, Tumblr ready, Social Justice Warrior preparing for a career writing for Vox. This cynicism towards the cultural legacy of the West is now the norm. Within the cloistered halls of academia, so-called “educators” openly cultivate an active hostility towards Western thought as the font of all human opression.

Just like the numerous contemporary atheist critics of Christianity who’ve fancied themselves the torchbearers of Voltaire’s flame, Voltaire was a moralist at heart and his literary jabs were designed to expose the hypocrisy of those who claimed to be arbiters of morality. Whether taking shots at the sexual indiscretions of Catholic clergy, the brutality of the Inquisitors or the Jesuits who do not practice the teachings of Christ they preach, Candide rightfully inferred that the ordained guardians of morality should live by the standards they imposed on the laity.

Society needs people like Voltaire in order to shock people out of complacent obedience and expose social taboos to sunlight. Ayaan Hirsi Ali says the Islamic world needs its own Voltaire in order to ignite a reformation within the Islamic faith. Institutional power, whether state, religious or academic, rarely lives up to its responsibility to uphold the truth or live by the standards it imposes on the public.  Yet, people crave the truth, and above all else, crave both a sense of moral certitude and to see hypocrisy exposed.  Since the truth often dies within the walls of power, the responsibility to stand up for the truth always redounds to the individual. Humorists and satirists like Voltaire have often been the catalysts of change that puncture the seal of propriety that the self-appointed arbiters of morality have so assiduously tightened.

Voltaire was the court jester of his time who sought to answer ancient moral conundrums by poking fun at what he perceived to be the strictures and limitations of prevailing orthodoxy. Some of Candide still would arouse controversy today, but his overall posture of enlightened contempt towards the conservative attitudes and institutions of his time has become its own orthodoxy of progressive chic. The poles of entrenched thinking have reversed, and what was controversial in its day is blasé today. There’s nothing even remotely transgressive or edgy about ridiculing Christian morality, institutions or the broader legacy of Western philosophy in 2017. Milo draws comparisons to Voltaire today because today’s elites are, in many ways, the intellectual progeny of Voltaire himself. Whatever validity there was in Voltaire’s quest for a secular moral order in its day has devolved into the smug wisecracking of Bill Maher, the proto-neurofascism of Sam Harris, and a postmodern academic hegemony of absolutist relativism.  All of whom are eagerly marching towards Gomorrah, but still doggedly cling to the delusion that Eldorado is the final destination.

While Candide may be showing its age, Voltaire’s spirit is evergreen because Puritanism knows no ideology, and people know who the busybodies are. Candide’s message of “tending one’s own garden” is a sufficiently universal ethical and moral principle, but the modern progressive intelligentsia have very specific ideas about what you can plant, how big it can be, and what pronouns you can use while tending it. Russell Brand, Bill Maher and John Oliver may imagine themselves to be the secular dragonslayers of hypocrisy who descend directly from Voltaire’s sacred order, but they’re actually the effete royalists who tacitly defend the new priesthood. Voltaire’s flame burns most brightly in the shitposting of Milo, the trolling of Steven Crowder, the savagery of Bearing and the meme magic of 4Chan.  Candide is both of its time and timeless because there will always be priests, politicians, academics and self-appointed behavior cops and thought police who deserve to be exposed, and there’s no better weapon than satire and ridicule.

Thomas Paine: Common Sense

Just like the famous shot heard around the world from the battle of Lexington, Thomas Paine’s liberty treatise from 1776 opens with a fire of clarity and purpose. Trumpian pugilism notwithstanding, it is a rare commodity in today’s era of political obscurantism and postmodernist chicanery.

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

In four sentences, Paine draws a critical distinction that has been buried under years of political rhetoric and false morality.  In the classical liberal formulation, the nation state exists only to punish violations of individual liberty and property.  In the modern progressive mind, the nation state is the ultimate arbiter of virtue whose guns and prisons can somehow be repurposed to serve a seemingly endless list of moral imperatives.  The ballot box can magically confer an ever expanding list of “rights” to any group claiming the mantle of oppression.

Thomas Paine embodies what is now referred to as classical liberalism. Since today’s liberals have perverted and collapsed this basic distinction beyond all recognition, Common Sense restores the word “liberal” to its true meaning.

In Common Sense, Paine makes an appeal to American colonists to secede from British rule and form a constitutionally limited State. It is, in many ways, the first #Brexit. It is equal parts polemic, Biblical history and political philosophy.

It’s easy to understand why this wouldn’t go down so well in today’s Age of Social Justice. Besides being the work of a white male, Common Sense’s primary object is anathema to the modern Left: liberty.  In contrast to the childish romanticism of the modern Left’s conception of the federal State, Paine views government without the blinkers of progressive pablum. He sees it as at best, a necessary evil, and at worse, an engine of destruction.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

Paine even attempts an argument that has been all but abandoned by the modern Left: an appeal to economic common sense.  Paine views the construction of a naval fleet as a unique opportunity for economic gain and common defense. Rather than being another screed of a tyrant reaching for imperial power, we hear a humble man making a rational appeal to economic logic in service of rallying the skills and resources of his countrymen in order to fulfill a single revolutionary objective.

No country on the globe is so happily situated, or so internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing. Whereas the Dutch, who make large profits by hiring out their ships of war to the Spaniards and Portuguese, are obliged to import most of the materials they use. We ought to view the building a fleet as an article of commerce, it being the natural manufactory of this country. It is the best money we can lay out. A navy when finished is worth more than it cost. And is that nice point in national policy, in which commerce and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not, we can sell; and by that means replace our paper currency with ready gold and silver.

Paine even expresses a concern for fiscal prudence and the burden that profligate spending would place on future generations.  The disdain he heaps on the politician who trades political favors for power is especially refreshing.

But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their backs, from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a pedling politician.

Paine promoted a fervent belief in religious freedom, and the idea that it is the indispensable duty of government to protect this freedom.

As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are so unwilling to part with, and he will be at once delivered of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same family, differing only, in what is called, their Christian names.

It’s very easy to read this and use it as a bludgeon against contemporary pro-Trump/anti-Muslim sentiment, but I believe it’s important to remember that this sentiment came from an avowed deist, and specifically, one who was raised in the Christian tradition. Has any similar sentiment arisen anywhere in Islamic culture? Does Islam promote a diversity of religious opinion now or at any other point in history?  To what extent is this belief of religious pluralism shared by contemporary Muslims?  Will progressives hold Muslims to this standard when they profess intolerance towards non-belief in Islam? Paine may have been appealing to what people in Western society regard as universal principles, but it doesn’t follow that every culture will share these principles.

What’s especially refreshing about Common Sense is the absence of the stink of academia.  That’s not to say that all academic thought is staid and stolid, but Paine’s prose burns with vigor because this is the work of a man who grasps the historical portent of the moment and knows that he has a winning argument.

At the center of Paine’s plea for liberty is an appeal to posterity, decency and yes, common sense.  Though Paine is largely viewed as one of the founding fathers of modern liberalism, the contemporary Left has all but abandoned Paine style liberalism.  Modern progressivism has traded the generosity of spirit and moral clarity of Paine for a shrill, condescending elitism which prioritizes identity politics and subservience to perceived institutional expertise over individual liberty. I doubt any progressive would concede the point, but you’re more likely to find the unifying message of Paine in an average Trump supporter sporting a MAGA hat than you will in a dyed hair collegiate gender studies major Berniecrat.

On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet been made to refute the doctrine contained in the former editions of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that either the doctrine cannot be refuted, or, that the party in favour of it are too numerous to be opposed.Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity; let each of us, hold out to his neighbour the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the rights of mankind and of the FREE AND INDEPENDANT STATES OF AMERICA.

The Crooked Timber of Humanity

Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made. – Immanuel Kant

If you’re interested in a contemporary philosopher who is able to put thousands of years into clear perspective, I would certainly place Sir Isaiah Berlin at or near the top of the list. Mr. Berlin’s vaunted reputation as an advocate for classical liberal principles and a first rate thought historian is entirely well deserved as The Crooked Timber of Humanity amply demonstrates.  As the title suggests, Berlin focuses on the origins of the movements that have led towards self-destruction and contrasts them against those which have animated modern liberal society. Specifically, he traces the origins of utopianism, cultural relativism versus pluralism, and fascism as well as its ideological bedfellow, nationalism.

Mr. Berlin treats the ideas and subjects with great respect. True to the spirit of his other works, his central goal in this collection serves both as a warning against the encroachment of tyrannical ideas as well to provide as an intellectual antidote to illiberalism. Berlin’s analysis of these thinkers is incisive. When evaluated in light of current political movements, remains relevant and often downright prescient.  One wonders if, with respect to universalism and managerial scientism, he has underestimated the allure and endurance of this doctrine.

Berlin opens with a broadside against the Platonic ideal and the accompanying pursuit of the utopian society.  The Platonic ideal is comprised of three components.

  1. All genuine questions have one true answer and all other answers are errors.
  2. There must be a dependable path towards the discovery of these truths.
  3. These universal truths are compatible with one another.

Human needs and the means by which to attain them could be discovered through same methods by which natural scientific law could be discovered.  Once discovered, these principles could be codified and implemented through policy.  Berlin argues that this impulse is on the decline in the West, but if the arguments of the contemporary social scientists serve as an indicator, the hunger for pseudo-scientific micromanagement of human affairs remains undiminished.

Berlin contends that Giambattista Vico’s Scienza Nuova (1725) and his doctrine of  the “common nature of nations” as well as a later generation of German Romantics, including Johann Gottfried von Herder, pointed towards a “cultural pluralism” which provided a counterpoint and possible antidote to the empirical absolutism of the Enlightenment.  The cultural pluralism Vico and Herder espoused rested on the contention that there were, in fact, incompatible values between cultures which could not be reconciled to universal principles. Both Vico and Herder’s thought contravened the Enlightenment consensus that man was ultimately governed by universal laws.

In this current age of globalization where the watchword is multiculturalism, Vico and Herder’s conclusions certainly warrant further examination and pose very important questions. What constitutes culture in a multicultural society?  If culture is the product of the transmission of practices and traditions which were generated within a genetically homogenous society over the course of centuries, to what extent are these practices meaningful in a multicultural society to those who didn’t belong to the original culture?  Are individuals from different cultures being held to universal standards of conduct in a multicultural society?  Is it possible to have a multiculturalism which isn’t manufactured by social engineers or a Trojan Horse for hollow identity politics and globalist socialism?  Perhaps most importantly, if individuals from other cultures immigrate to a new culture in search of a better life, do they have any obligation to honor the culture into which they’ve inserted themselves whether voluntarily or by necessity?

Since this doctrine ran contrary to the cultural objectivist consensus of the day, Berlin contends that Vico and Herder’s pluralism should not be confused with relativism.  In other words, neither Vico nor Herder espoused a relativism of fact, but a relativism of values.  His emphasis on this difference is not insignificant in light of the current multicultural zeitgeist. In defense of Vico and Herder, he invokes a poignant quote from John Stuart Mill:

It is hardly possible to overrate the value, in the present low state of human improvement, of placing human beings in contact with persons dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike those with which they are familiar. Commerce is now what war once was, the principal source of this contact. Commercial adventurers from more advanced countries have generally been the first civilizers of barbarians. And commerce is the purpose of the far greater part of the communication which takes place between civilized nations. Such communication has always been, and is peculiarly in the present age, one of the primary sources of progress.

Mill’s quote refers specifically to commerce as the cultural bridge, but his underlying point about the difficulty of understanding a pluralism of values in the absence of commerce is what warrants deeper consideration. The multiculturalists, social engineers and globalists have attempted to engineer such a consensus artificially by advancing an aggressive agenda of Tolerance™ with an ever diminishing set of results to show for it. It’s ironic that the champions of this doctrine have shown such remarkable contempt for the opponents of their agenda and remain unwilling to appreciate the relativism of values which run contrary to their megalomaniacal ambitions.  Once again, one wonders if it is possible to create a multicultural consensus which doesn’t devolve into a clinical and bureaucratic utilitarianism papered over by empty platitudes of Unity©.

A significant portion of the book is devoted to the individual Mr. Berlin believes to be the architect of modern fascism, Joseph de Maistre. In light of the rising tide of nationalism which has engulfed America and much of Europe, Berlin’s discussion of Maistre’s thought is especially poignant given that this phenomenon is largely a backlash to the social engineering of the multiculturalists and globalists. While Greece’s Golden Dawn party certainly represents a rising tide of genuine fascism which contains the twin hallmarks of the movement in its various historical manifestations, racial purity and nationalism, Maistre’s thought reminds us that there is more than a little paranoia and manufactured hysteria in the bleating of the progressive Left when it comes to Trump, Brexit and the various nationalist movements on the rise throughout Europe.

Maistre was a true reactionary to every aspect of the Enlightenment project. While the egalitarians espoused a view of man in which universal truth could be attained through scientific inquiry, Maistre rejected this doctrine with absolute impunity. On every aspect of the Enlightenment consensus, from rationalism to individualism to liberal egalitarianism, Maistre regarded these ideas with pure contempt.  By Berlin’s reckoning, Maistre’s vision of social order demanded absolute subordination to the Cross and the Crown.

While it is not unreasonable to conclude that Maistre provided the ideological template for the fascism of modern times, it certainly prompts questions over the appropriateness of seemingly indiscriminate and ubiquitous usage of the term today.  Especially with respect to the Left and their positively pathological and cartoonish hysteria over Trump. The Trump agenda remains an open question, but there is little doubt that the Left is in the business of conjuring ideological boogeymen out of thin air and painting any opposition to their globalist designs as “fascism”.  If the perpetuation of the multicultural agenda hinges on denigrating the foundations of Western thought which allows the very pluralism they allegedly value, they assure a recursive loop of nationalist backlash which validates their own prejudices.

Berlin concludes with a meditation on nationalism which is prophetic yet cautionary in tone, but raises fresh questions all the same.  While there is little doubt that nationalism in its extreme manifestation when married to the machinery of the State has proven itself a destructive force, Berlin reminds us that there is a deep seated humanity struggling to assert itself from under the dehumanizing designs of the sophisters, calculators and acolytes of scientism. The pursuit of universalism animated the West, but also created a unfortunate desire to manufacture a stultifying and artificial uniformity.  There is little doubt that the primal urge of nationalism has been and can be exploited by demagogues and populists, but it is not unreasonable to conclude that some measure of nationalist pride has, in fact, paved a path for the multiculturalism and genuine pluralism so idolized by the Left.  While much of the Islamic world, Asia and Africa remain ethnic and ideological monocultures, the burden of multiculturalism has been placed disproportionately on Western societies. As this policy unravels by the day, is it any wonder that there is a nationalist backlash towards individuals who apparently have no desire to adopt the cultural values of their adopted countries?  Berlin was keenly attuned to this aspect of nationalism and his words presaged the collective rage of the Brexiters and Trumpians to a t.

There is a growing number among the youth of our day who see their future as a process of being fitted into some scientifically well-constructed programme, after the data of their life-expectancy and capacities and utilisability have been classified, computerized, and analyzed for conduciveness to the purpose, at the very best, of producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This will determine the organisation of life on a national or regional or world scale, and this without undue attention to, or interest in (since this is not needed for the completion of the task), their individual characters, ways of life, wishes, quirks, ideals. This moves them to gloom and fury or despair. They wish to be and do something, and not merely be acted upon, or for, or on behalf of.  They demand recognition of their dignity as human beings. They do not wish to be reduced to human material, to being counters in a game played by others, even when it is played, at least in part, for the benefits of these counters themselves. A revolt breaks out at all levels.

While some philosophers and academics seemingly revel in their ability to obfuscate and mistakenly believe that verbosity equals profundity, Mr. Berlin’s prose sings with clarity and actually serves the purpose that philosophical inquiry was meant to serve: to illuminate. Mr. Berlin has written a collection of thought provoking essays which prove that we are well served by understanding how the ideas of the past shape the present, and most importantly, that the contrarians of bygone eras have something of value to offer. Even if it runs contrary to everything we hold sacred. And through this understanding, we may ask the right questions and formulate the answers to the issues of the present and future.

Atheism Versus Moral Realism

Though I consider myself an atheist, I get a little tired of the atheist contempt heaped on Christianity. There’s certainly no shortage of fundamentalist nutbags or clips of Pat Robertson spewing nonsense on which to pile scorn and ridicule. Hating on Christians and Christianity has become a bit of a tired cliché among atheists and progressives alike[1]. It’s especially galling when atheists will champion Christian values when they’re being upheld by a Democrat politician.  Christian values become instantly legitimate when a Christian religious leader validates their bias towards the moral righteousness of a particular policy agenda. On the other hand, Islam is rightfully receiving a vigorous critique from some corners of the atheist community on the grounds that it is barbaric, backwards and counter to basic liberal principles. Each of these phenomena raises an important point often derided and dismissed by atheists: the importance of moral realism. 

How can you claim moral retrogression in human behavior or in any ideology if you don’t claim that there is objective moral truth in the first place? Indeed, how can one formulate any theory of ethics, justice, or rights without some basic, universal, objective standard upon which to judge right and wrong?

Atheists argue that the belief in God is irrational because there’s no empirical proof of his existence. Atheists also tend to claim a mantle of moral superiority, myself included, since we view the world through the cold lens of hard reason, rationalism and empiricism. This belief in the power of reason reaches back to the Enlightenment and that the exercise of this capacity alone will guide us to a secular moral truth. Since God is a delusion, how can one uphold religious morality as a standard by which to guide our own actions let alone judge others? Surely, only a sad and limited consciousness would embrace the antiquated notion of a Supreme Being. Isn’t this belief in a Supreme Being, in fact, the very reason that people commit such horrible atrocities in God’s name, reject science and hold bigoted and exclusionary beliefs to this day? MUH CRUSADES, CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL, HOMOPHOBIC BAKERS, AND ABORTION DOCTOR MURDERERS, AMIRITE?! Though it is a debate that been waged for centuries, conservative theist YouTuber, The Distributist, argued very persuasively that even if you are an atheist, you cannot disregard or take lightly the theist argument for the existence of God on the basis of morality. 

In the video, The Distributist responds to Vernaculis’ snide, condescending response Dr. Peter Kreeft’s moral case for the existence of God. In Kreeft’s video, he lays out all of the classic secular arguments for morality and why morality cannot be regarded as a set of preferences.  These arguments include:

  • Evolution
  • Reason
  • Conscience
  • Human Nature
  • Utilitarianism
  • In each case, both Kreeft and The Distributist argue that from these premises, morality will devolve in a few predictable ways. It will be subjectively constructed and enforced. It will potentially regress backwards or will arise from an a posteriori analysis which may or may not serve as a useful moral foundation for an evolving society. The latter case assumes of course that civilization has weathered the vagaries of a society based on a relativistic morality in the first place. Since mankind is subject to flaws, has the ability to make choices, and the establishment of moral normativity and ethics is necessary if one hopes to have a shot at actual civilization, it follows that one can only appeal to an external, immutable moral absolute which is both universally accessible and exists outside man and nature.  The Distributist and Kreeft both conclude that if there is absolute moral law, there must be an absolute lawgiver. Ergo, God exists.  

    Not bad.

    Setting aside whether one accepts the argument at all, why would a world of moral absolutes be preferable to moral relativism? Wouldn’t that lead to a RELIGIOUS TYRANNY??

    No.  

    For example, if murder is objectively wrong, it it was wrong in the past and remains wrong today. The fact that those vested with moral authority commit murder (e.g. priests, politicians, monarchs) doesn’t invalidate the moral law. Rather, it only proves that the person in question failed to live up to the law in his life choices.  Just as the unchanging laws of nature have allowed for vast scientific and technological discovery, an unchanging moral law provides an equally sound basis from which to make moral choices.

    Using any of the other bases for formulating morality, one could arrive at a valid moral rationale for murder, and history has borne this out.  Stalin was an atheist and saw no moral transgression in murdering millions of his citizens. He was the leader of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat who was merely facilitating the historical inevitability of a socialist worker’s paradise. It was justified on both evolutionary and utilitarian grounds. Checkmate, moral realism!

    Regardless of whether one accepts that moral objectivity proves the existence of God, it raises a deep challenge for the atheist who isn’t a moral relativist.  It requires that the atheist instantiate a metaphysical construct of Good and Evil which isn’t tied to any supernatural being or phenomenon.  It’s certainly possible to impart morality and ethics without religious beliefs, but religion is meant to express some kind of eternal moral truth in the universe.  Needless to say, this raises all kinds of questions around whether a religious text that commands you to stone your wife, condemn homosexuality or refrain from eating bacon can really be regarded as some kind of eternal moral truth. The point is there is indeed a necessity for objective morality as a foundational proposition from which one exercises free will. 

    Notable atheists, Sam Harris and Stefan Molyneux in particular, have attempted to proffer theories of morality that are grounded in science and logic. However, I propose that this is a fundamental epistemological error and the consignment of morality to the realm of science or logic negates and nullifies that which makes us human. Humans are driven by many factors, but by and large, we aspire to express love, be of service to others and do the Right Thing by our fellow humans. Even if you have no religious belief, humans aspire to reach the ineffable and the infinite through earthly works and human relationships. We extol examples of heroism, charity, goodwill and kindness and condemn acts of predation, cruelty, indifference and violence. We champion art which affirms our deepest yearnings for love, connectedness, companionship and eternal beauty.  We want to be reminded that our lives have meaning, that doing the Right Thing actually matters. We want to know that it is possible to affect change for the better. By inserting morality into the realm of science or logic, we’re subsuming these aspects of ourselves which cannot be quantified or proven through a logical proposition and building a world of mechanistic determinism. 

    Sadly, atheism has long been the province of the socialist Left throughout the world. While there are certainly atheist libertarians, the overwhelming majority of atheists have built a new global church of atheism in the government which has replaced moral realism with an endless array of moral wrongs to be punished and rights to be conferred. This cult of moral relativism has reached its apotheosis in the agenda of the modern day social justice warrior. Feminism, multiculturalism, and scientism all converge within the progressive agenda to form a set of moral precepts which are easily sold by ideologues, academic hacks, would-be intellectuals and politicians. Rape statistics are used by feminists not because they actually care about rape victims, but because they wish to inculcate shame and guilt in men for having the Original Sin of an XY chromosomal pair. Environmentalist doomsayers who inveigh against consumption, fossil fuels and “climate science deniers” are no different from your garden variety Baptist preacher invoking the fires of Eternal Damnation.  #Blacklivesmatter activists are far more concerned with policing what people say and think than attending to the needs of the black community. The higher priority is to have white people atone for White Privilege by implementing an agenda of “economic justice”. What do all these agendas have in common?  They all lead down the road towards the new and improved globalist serfdom.  

    Moral relativism is little more than a recipe for a recursive loop of existential ennui, angst, cynicism, anxiety, and nihilism. It also provides a readymade validation of Marxist alienation. The cult of scientism is pushing us into a society that’s increasingly automated, mechanized, deterministic and disconnected from ourselves and one another. The identity politics of guilt and shame are creating more division and enshrining a culture of victimhood and censorship. As the problems wrought by the relativists proliferate, the atheist priesthood doubles down and agitates for an ever expanding sphere of government sanctions, dispensations, accommodations and privileges.

    The advancement of human liberty and the market economy has afforded modern society the luxury of rejecting religious belief. Christianity remains a punching bag for atheists, but at this point, it appears to be little more than a license to hate conservatives. We live in a world where burning a Bible scarcely raises an eyebrow, but a drawing of Muhammad is a potential death sentence. Clearly, not all religions are equal, but the obvious moral depravity of Islam is continually overlooked by the progressive wing of the atheist community because it’s apparently a far worse sin to appear “bigoted” towards Muslims.  As far as “scientific” moralism goes,  Sam Harris’ handwaving away of Hillary Clinton’s vote for the Iraq War and career of corruption should tell you everything you need to know about how reliable this theory of morality is. The verdict is in on moral relativism and it is a recipe for self destruction.

    Classical liberalism has given us the freedom to pursue life on our own terms even if it involves no religious belief.  But atheists aren’t adding to human progress by embracing moral relativism. 

    [1] Most atheists also self-identify as progressive.

    Herbert Marcuse: Repressive Tolerance

    If you’re paying any attention to the state of free speech on college campuses, you wouldn’t be unreasonable to conclude that this time honored, liberal principle is under siege.  But how did college campuses, the very institutions charged with upholding the principles of Western thought, become incubation chambers of intolerance?  Whose ideas have supplanted the propositions which have driven progress of Western civilization since the Protestant Reformation and taken root in the minds of students and faculty alike?   I contend that the current repression of free speech, embodied by the progressive social justice warrior, which conveniently silences conservative and libertarian views can certainly be traced in part or in whole to the influence of Herbert Marcuse.

    German émigré, founder of the Frankfurt School of social science and former employee of the Office of Strategic Services and Office of War Information, Herbert Marcuse espoused a heady brand of warmed over Marxist socio-economic criticism whose influence reverberates to this day. The fact that he worked in the US federal government in an office which disseminated war propaganda and was sympathetic to Marxist thought yet is revered as the father of the allegedly dissident New Left movement is revealing all by itself.  Marcuse published several works, but his essay, Repressive Tolerance, which was originally featured in A Critique of Pure Tolerance opens a very clear window of insight into the mentality and behavior of campus faculty and students alike.

    Marcuse starts with a classically Marxist thesis.  The traditional liberal premise of equality of liberty and equality before the law only serves to prop up a bourgeois false consciousness and perpetuate a “tolerance” of oppressive forces which perpetuate injustice and inequality.  Consequently, the attainment of objective truth is compromised because the bourgeois media desensitizes the proles to the inhumanity and injustice which surrounds him.

    The toleration of the systematic moronization of children and adults alike by publicity and propaganda, the release of destructiveness in aggressive driving, the recruitment for and training of special forces, the impotent and benevolent tolerance toward outright deception in merchandizing, waste, and planned obsolescence are not distortions and aberrations, they are the essence of a system which fosters tolerance as a means for perpetuating the struggle for existence and suppressing the alternatives. The authorities in education, morals, and psychology are vociferous against the increase in juvenile delinquency; they are less vociferous against the proud presentation, in word and deed and pictures, of ever more powerful missiles, rockets, bombs–the mature delinquency of a whole civilization.

    Through the reasoning of his convoluted Hegelian dialectic, he concludes that the only way to redress this systematic injustice is to actively suppress the political thought and speech of those on the Right.  Because after all, the Right not only represents the interests of the ruling, empowered class, but is the incubation chamber of every repressive regime since the emergence of the democratic nation state. All revolutionary change, has emerged “from below” (i.e. the proles). Since the repressive capitalist class is on the Right, and the champions of social justice and revolutionary change are on the Left, the best way to ensure that a true reign of justice prevails is to silence the voices of the Right and actively promote the voices of the Left.

    Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.

    Sound familiar?  Not only is it a repurposing of the classic Marxist dichotomy of proles versus bourgeoisie, it maps to the observable behavior of social justice warriors on campuses throughout the Western world.  This basic template of thought also translates into virtually all intersectional feminist/queer/race theory that is the bedrock of the entire plague of social justice advocacy poisoning campuses and media throughout the world.

    I don’t know how much the work of Marcuse and his Frankfurt School contemporaries is actually taught in campuses, but I suspect that it has receded into the background as more contemporary “thinkers” have taken his place. Repressive Tolerance taken its proper place as a product his former employers at the OSS would have appreciated: propaganda for the Left.

    Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Towards a Secular Theocracy

    image

    Like many Americans, I grew up holding the view that America needed to evolve with respect to gender, race and gay relations in order to live up to its creed and “form a more perfect Union.”  I viewed the attainment of women’s suffrage, the ’64 Civil Rights Act, Brown v. Board of Education and the gay marriage equality movement as crucial steps towards achieving the Union that the Founders surely envisioned.

    If the rhetoric of #Blacklivesmatter, LGBT activists, professional feminists and politicians is to be believed, racial and gender relations are worse than ever. Despite all that’s been achieved in the political arena, the concerns of these disparate civil rights activists have conjoined over the past several decades to fight what is seemingly an omnipresent, all-encompassing oppression. These intertwined agendas now form the foundations of what is best described as a secular fundamentalism known colloquially as Social Justice. 

    Paul Gottfried’s brilliant and essential examination of modern social justice politics, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt, unpacks the origins of this movement in detail. Social justice activism has transformed from an arguably principled pursuit of gender and racial egalitarianism into a toxic and repressive cult that’s deeply and inextricably linked to the democratic managerial state.  Just as Christina Hoff Sommers punctured feminism’s hot air balloon of manufactured grievances, Paul Gottfried’s book provides a sober analysis of the philosophical and legislative roots of modern identity politics. 

    The classical model of state ownership of industry that defined socialism throughout the 20th century has fallen out of favor. However, this agenda has been implemented through a more sophisticated form of socialism. Building from the insights of his previous work, After Liberalism, Gottfried argues that the democratic managerial welfare state is where the contemporary socialist priesthood and their fellow social engineers have built their new temple. The welfare state is not just limited to dispensing material goods. It must administer a therapeutic form of national unity. This new secular theocracy of multiculturalism and diversity has been integrated into social services, public education, and most prominently, in higher education. It is amplified by the high priests in Hollywood films, television and mass media with a fervor that rivals the most devout religious zealots. 

    He further argues that contemporary identity politics is best described as deformation of Protestant principles. Protestantism’s anti-hierarchical and anti-communitarian tendencies combined with a healthy dose of Calvinist guilt create the perfect template for a new secular theocracy. The contemporary orthodoxy posits that the past was irredeemably rife with retrogressive attitudes and oppression. Subsequently, the modern progressive who is concerned about upholding the new progressive virtue will seek to uplift groups perceived to be the brunt of systemic oppression and denigrate his own group if he’s atop the hierarchy of “privilege.”

    One of the most astonishing arguments presented is Gottfried’s contention that the push to manage consciousness and behavior was the domestic policy correlate to international military intervention. The contemporary managerial state has origins in The Great Society and the shift towards affecting outcomes accompanied its implementation. In 1966, President Johnson openly declared the following:

    The overriding rule which I want to affirm today is this: that our foreign policy must always be an extension of this Nation’s domestic policy. Our safest guide to what we do abroad is always take a good look at what we are doing at home.

    It makes perfect sense because today’s social justice jihad, like the War on Terror, is a war without end. The only difference is that it’s a culture war which naturally splits the population into competing groups and pits them against one another. Gottfried’s analysis of the never-ending crusade to purge and suppress any symbols, ideas or speech which might inflict “harm” or be perceived as “discriminatory” is devastatingly accurate.  The administrators of the managerial state have managed to succeed in producing an outcome that masks its coercive nature and goes beyond what legislation alone could have achieved. Through the steady drip of therapeutic propaganda, the engineers of the managerial state have bred a generation of cultural revolutionaries who place a higher value on the perceived virtues of multiculturalism than American principles of classical liberalism or constitutionalism.  The government doesn’t need to impose mandates from on high. The ambassadors of multiculturalism have bred a generation which gives total and unquestioned fealty to the perceived virtues of “diversity”. This deference is accompanied by an abject worship of authority that is perhaps unsurpassed in American history. Contemporary champions of social justice are waging their own homegrown Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the State is just waiting for the opportunity to deliver the repressions they so deeply crave. 

    Another key feature of the social justice/multicultural Left highlighted by Gottfried is its battle against what it perceives as “antifascism.”  While politicians make denunciations of easy targets like Jörg Haider who express Nazi sympathies, social justice warriors denounce those who express unpopular or what are perceived to be “bigoted” sentiments. This paranoia is justified in the minds of social justice Left in order to forestall what they perceive to be the omnipresent threat of a slide into a new Third Reich. Following the pattern set by Johnson in Vietnam, this feature of social justice activism also has a military analogue. Even when American politicians carry out military action against someone with Marxist-Leninist beliefs like Slobodan Milošević or Islamic dictators like Saddam Hussein, these tyrants get tarred as “Right Wing” dictators. This partisan demagoguery gives American politicians a free pass to pursue whatever military action they please. The “antifascist” Left has reached an absurd crescendo with the advent of the Trump campaign. Despite having a platform that’s an incoherent hodgepodge of positions drawn from the Right and Left, the charges of “fascism” increase in tempo and volume. The opposition he receives from neocons, party apparatchiks and military leaders alike doesn’t seem to register either. Trump’s rhetoric and identification with the GOP all by themselves are sufficient grounds upon which to tar him with the “fascist” label. Legions of progressives are denouncing him as the second coming of Mussolini and Hitler combined. 

    Gottfried further argues that the other aspect of the “antifascist” multicultural Left is the crusade against perceived xenophobia.  While governments pursue an agenda of unchecked militarism abroad, refugees of war torn countries seek asylum in the West. Politicians are all too happy to accommodate in the name of “diversity.” When a segment of Americans and Europeans oppose the efforts, the multicultural Left predictably denounces opponents of immigration as “racist” and “xenophobic.” Though most people in the West are sympathetic to immigrants who are seeking to improve their station in life, pointing out the potential problems in any way is evidence of “xenophobia” and “racism.” Despite the recent unprecedented tragedy of several hundred women being assaulted in Cologne on a single evening, all criticism or skepticism of immigration must be purged from discussion.  The effects of low skills and education or sharp cultural differences between those raised in Islamic countries under Sharia Law are not taken into account.  Subsequently, a rational debate about immigration cannot take place. The predictable result is an ever escalating set of tensions with opponents of immigration predictably branded as racist. This schism has only become more pronounced with the ascendancy of the Trump candidacy. 

    The role of social science in shaping the prevailing consensus around multiculturalism cannot be gainsaid.  Building from the foundations laid by the likes of John Dewey and Herbert Croly, the modern social scientists “proclaim a postreligious science and equate the promotion of the social good with acts of will.”  These doctrines of groupthink and collectivism which assign higher virtue to social construction of personal identity have been championed by feminists and social engineers who seek nothing less than to recode human nature. One need only look at the state of affairs on college campuses throughout America and Europe to see the poison fruits of this ill conceived social experiment. 

    The only piece of the multicultural, social justice Left which Gottfried omits is climate change activism.  Intersectional social justice, feminism and climate change activism comprise a trifecta of modern progressive virtue.  Together, these three articles of faith form a seamless fabric of modern day statist piety. 

    As the chants of the social justice, multicultural Left grow louder, the retribution meted out by self-appointed social justice cops becomes more damaging.  Government officials have ratcheted up their own efforts in response to this ever escalating demand to silence “hate speech”.  The charges are increasingly petty and the sanctions are increasingly punitive. The need for measured, philosophical opposition grows in proportion.  With this book, Paul Gottfried has identified an ideological toxin whose effects are everywhere, but whose origins are unacknowledged or unseen. 

    Multicultural social justice politics have achieved dominance throughout the cultural landscape. Academia, mass media entertainment have long been occupied by the multicultural intelligentsia and they’re currently making inroads into public schools and the military. The virtues of Diversity, Inclusion and Feminism are openly and routinely extolled by politicians, entertainers and academics. Cornel West and Ta-Nahisi Coates have made cottage industries of proclaiming the dire state of race relations in America. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau preaches the gospel of feminism to the UN. Hillary Clinton proclaims her feminist credentials to a giddy Lena Dunham. The 2016 Oscars were a cringe inducing paean to Hollywood’s “diversity crisis.” Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Ted Talk is mandatory reading in Sweden. On and on.

    It’s imminently clear which people are invested in promoting the Gospel of the Church of Multiculturalism. Fortunately, many now recognize it for what it is: a decades-long advanced propaganda campaign designed to debilitate the individual, destabilize family and hereditary culture, and assign virtue to victimhood. Above all, it’s an elitist, intellectual grift for rent seeking blowhards who want nothing more than to inculcate total deference to state authority, expand their own cults of personality and enlarge their academic fiefdoms. This book is an essential read for those who still prioritize liberty and self-determination over the megalomania of academics, social justice warriors, politicians and so-called social scientists.

    image

    The Law

    image

    I graduated from public high school and obtained a bachelor’s degree from a music school with some basic liberal arts requirements, and up until recently, I was never introduced to Frederic Bastiat’s work. I’m disappointed by this fact, but after reading it, not surprised. 

    Frederic Bastiat’s masterpiece, The Law, should be read by everyone who values the freedom of the individual or a free society.  For those unfamiliar with Mr. Bastiat, he was a French businessman, political philosopher, and statesman and could be described as the Ron Paul of 19th century France. This book was published before he died and many justifiably regard it as his definitive masterpiece of political thought. The Law was intended as a response to the ascendant socialist policies and politicians. 

    The Law is the megaton warhead of truth bombs. There isn’t so much as a wasted word. Every sentence bursts off the page and cuts through the fog of sophists, academics, socialists and would-be intellectuals with the precision of a Hanzo sword. 

    The Law is a powerful argument that exemplifies the tradition of European classical liberal thought from which the American founding fathers drew inspiration and shaped the principles on which the modern libertarian movement is based. 

    Bastiat argues that there is a supreme, natural law to which all written law must be subordinate, and that this ur-law has been perverted to serve its opposite purpose: legalized plunder. The right to “individuality, liberty and property” is the proper conception of the law and that the very existence of the state is merely the collective assignment of self-defense to a public institution.  Bastiat argues that as long as the state circumscribes itself to this function, individuals will not assign undue allegiance to the state nor petition for its expansion. It’s a compelling argument, but since socialism was ascendant when it was written, Bastiat attends to the logical consequences of empowering the state to engage in legalized plunder, the defining feature of socialist politics, in the remainder of the text. 

    This book is one hundred sixty-six years old, and yet, everything in it would easily be shouted down as heretical and retrograde today by apologists for the state.  The truth of what he’s arguing cannot be denied. 

    Bastiat righteously eviscerates the sheer elitism and contempt socialists have towards humanity by attempting to link moral choices and civic virtue to lawful coercive force. By supplanting the free choices of individuals with the forcible imposition of the will of the legislator and the bureaucrat, the socialist systematizes sociopathy, avarice and obedience.  All of the dysfunction Bastiat described in 1850 applies to the sad state of current affairs.

    All of his observations of socialists are devastatingly accurate.  Socialists do not care for facts or reason and let neither get in the way of the forcible implementation of their agenda.  Socialists view humanity as empty vessels that need their divine guidance and their pretensions intellectual superiority. 

    In the latter half of the book, Bastiat takes direct aim at the would-be ministrations of the philosophers, politicians and didacts of the day.  From Robespierre to Rousseau, Bastiat takes apart these insufferable authoritarians and their detestable designs on managing human affairs down to the last detail.  As a result of the perversion of the law to which this book is devoted, America and the West have colonized academia and created vast cottage industries dedicated to the various sects of state worship and their doctrines of obedience. The will to dominate others has polluted the minds and perverted the ambitions of people since the time of Plato, and Bastiat’s rebuke remains sadly relevant. Bastiat says it best:

    If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

    Bastiat identifies the proper application of law as defensive force.  Every individual has an inviolable right to defend life and property. This is the sole function of the state confined to its proper role. In America presently, the respect for this basic, natural right is consistently undermined by the deranged and manipulative bleating of politicians, activists, and media alike in their ceaseless quest to consolidate power.  For some, mere ownership of firearms makes your motives suspect and armed protest will get you branded a terrorist by the bloodthirsty mob. 

    One of the most provocative arguments is Bastiat’s skepticism towards universal suffrage.  Nowadays, all you hear from academic, media, identity politics and feminist circles is a relentless drumbeat of scorn and reproach heaped on the “white male capitalist patriarchy” and a seemingly ceaseless campaign to browbeat men everywhere into a posture of penitence for daring to exclude anyone from the ballot box despite having no role in crafting the founding documents.  It’s very easy and tempting to view Bastiat’s argument as the retrograde view of a man who wants everyone else to be subordinate, but this reasoning emerged from a philosophical conviction that political power was not meant to be coveted or actively pursued in service of anything beyond preservation of liberty in the first place. He contends that if the law were confined to its proper function, everyone’s interest would be the same. Films like Selma and Suffragette seem explicitly calculated to inculcate feelings of guilt and shame in men (white men specifically) for committing the unspeakable crime of disenfranchising women and minorities from voting. It’s more than a little ironic that feminists don’t want male politicians making decisions by legislative fiat over their reproductive choices, but are simultaneously completely content to advocate for expropriating resources for material benefits and special legal privileges by the same method.

    Speaking of Suffragette, it’s also ironic that movie with such a pro-suffrage message seems to have borrowed from Mr. Bastiat. Bastiat wrote, “The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable”.  In the film, Violet Miller says, “You want me to respect the law? Then make the law respectable”.  Where was Inigo Montoya when we needed him?

    Despite the attainment of universal suffrage, this achievement is apparently no longer sufficient either.  Between open appeals from our enlightened progressive overlords for mandatory voting and completely sincere appeals for children voting, the appetite for government sponsored avarice and unchallenged fealty to the state knows no boundaries.

    Another important point Bastiat makes is that one cannot formulate political theory without first developing a rational, scientific theory of economics. Modern economic thought takes government intervention as a given. Bastiat died before the Marginal Revolution, but it’s apparent that his conception of economics assigned greater importance to human action and seemed closer to the theoretical framework of praxeology that was eventually articulated by Mises.  

    As compelling as the idea of a limited state is, it seems fairly apparent that this idea has proven itself a failure. The law has been perverted to serve its opposite purpose, and many now take it as a given that the law must serve socialist agendas. Generally speaking, arguments to the contrary are immediately regarded with scorn, ridicule and censure. After years of inflammatory anti-capitalist rhetoric from the political, academic and media complex, we are living in a time when a self-identifying socialist is running for president. Imagine Mr. Bastiat’s disappointment in the current state of affairs were he alive to bear witness.

    Despite the rhetoric of Constitutional conservatives and minarchists, they have no track record of success in scaling back the state.  During the Obama administration alone, the funding for the Department of Homeland Security dried up and the charter of the Ex-Im Bank was allowed to expire.  Both were revived and conservatives played a role in their restoration. And when conservative candidates for president openly champion minimum wage indexed to inflation, it’s fair to say that modern American conservatism has drifted far away from its original principles.

    Forget the pretentious Marxists, socialists and the so-called anarcho-communists and their attempts to resuscitate dead ideas and pass them off as transgressive thought.  These people dominate academia and have plenty of sympathy in the media, political and intellectual classes and they continue to present themselves as beleaguered underdogs whose voices are being choked under the oppressive stranglehold of capitalism. What utter horseshit. 

    Those who’ve borne the torch of liberty have always had to fight the socialists, centralizers, planners, and academic elitists who think they know what’s best for you. Sadly, the false promise of socialism retains its appeal in the 21st century. Fortunately, the message of The Law remains undimmed by the passage of time and more urgent than ever. 

    Heretic – Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now

    image

    We find ourselves living in times of increased strife and conflict both domestically and abroad, and rational thought and open discourse often seem in short supply, and in some circles, under siege. As the war on terror, the ongoing debate over the role Islam plays in fueling violence and the battle for free speech weigh heavily on the body politic, Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s latest book, Heretic, arrives at a crucial moment and makes a fearless and important case which speaks to all three issues simultaneously.

    The courage of this book burns like a bonfire of righteousness warding off an ever encroaching darkness of cynicism and nihilism. Ms. Hirsi Ali’s story and the argument contained in the book are a shining testimony to the durability of Western liberal ideas of universal rights and individual liberty.

    The premise of Heretic is very straightforward. Ms. Hirsi Ali argues that Islam is not a religion of peace, the acts of barbarism and terrorism are encoded in the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the Hadith, and that if Islam is to be regarded as a religion of peace, it must undergo a Reformation.

    One would certainly hope that a country like the United States founded on principles of Western thought, including and especially universal rights, would openly embrace Ms. Hirsi Ali’s call for reform, but the task is challenging even in a liberal society such as ours.  Presently, the current media and political environment is polluted and overcrowded by preening PC scolds and mendacious politicians who seem intent on both silencing any meaningful debate over Islam or sowing seeds of confusion with feebleminded postmodern appeals to nihilism and moral relativism.

    Fortunately, Ms. Hirsi Ali’s clarion call for freedom and reform requires neither politicians nor leadership from above of any kind.  Though the primary audience for this book are the non-violent Muslims throughout the world she refers to as Mecca Muslims, anyone who values universal human rights and freedoms should have a stake in a Muslim Reformation.

    Just as Christina Hoff Sommers drew a very useful distinction between gender feminism and equity feminism in Who Stole Feminism, Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes three important distinctions between Muslims. The first group she regards as Medina Muslims and are largely beyond reach. In other words, followers of Muhammad’s doctrines of violence against infidels found throughout the latter half of the Qur’an written in Medina and seek the union of mosque and state known as Sharia Law. Mecca Muslims, on the other hand, form the majority of the Islamic world, follow the peaceful teachings of Muhammad’s time in Mecca, but live in a state of “cognitive dissonance” with the modern world. The third group of Muslims are reformers and dissidents found throughout the Muslim world and the West who are putting their lives on the line to call for changes to a religion that has doggedly resisted change since its inception in the 7th century.

    Contrary to what irritating sophists and preachy progressives would have you believe about Islam, virtually every horrific crime against humanity and decency you can name has foundations in Islamic text. From the barbaric corporal punishments of stoning and amputation mandated in Sharia to acts of martyrdom and jihad, each of these actions has foundations in scripture.

    Contemporary feminists in the Western world have made both a cottage industry and a very influential political apparatus solely dedicated to whining about the alleged jackbooted oppression of the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, but these idiotic grievances are revealed as the petty and childish delusions they are when measured against the horrific treatment to which women are subjected by the actual patriarchal oppression of Islam. Whether it’s arranged marriages for young girls, gang rape, genital mutilation or the subordinate role to which all women in the Muslim world are routinely circumscribed, the absence of feminist outrage as well as the rote charges of Islamophobia are deeply revealing of the true intentions of Western establishment feminism.

    Worse still, Islam’s collectivist, authoritarian, and murderous tendencies extend beyond Sharia Law and into the realm of extrajudicial justice known as “honor killings“.  Whenever any woman is perceived to bring dishonor to the family name, she is often subject to the harshest retribution. Sometimes from her own family.

    The treatment of homosexuals and transgender folk is equally harsh. Once again, the fact that social justice progressives have opted to frame criticism of Islam as bigotry is both deeply ironic and revealing.

    Far and away, Islam’s biggest crime against reason and humanity is the demand for the death penalty for apostasy. It goes without saying that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has put her life on the line to write this book. The Protestant Reformation begat the Scientific and Industrial Revolution and gave rise to the Enlightenment principles which have animated the human spirit and lit the fire of progress throughout America and the West.  Islam has resisted any comparable reform. This resistance to criticism has had only deleterious effects on the Islamic world.  By resisting Reformation, the Islamic world has compromised economic and intellectual progress and produced generations of Muslims who value blind faith and obedience over individualism.

    As Ms. Hirsi Ali so brilliantly states it, the Muslim Reformation will need a relentless campaign of blasphemy. The War on Terror will not ever succeed. The battle for human freedom must be fought with ideas, not bombs. Islam in its fullest expression is the union of mosque and state. This union must be severed.

    Politicians and the social justice warriors who parrot their talking points are actively invested in browbeating dissidents into silence over Islam.  They need a divided population in order to sustain political and economic interests in the Middle East.  Fortunately, we do not need them.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali has sounded the fanfare of freedom with this book. If this is something that matters to you, you know what you need to do.

    House of Cards Season 1

    image

    After years of enduring Aaron Sorkin’s sanctimonious and insufferable fantasies of virtuous government do-gooders in shows and films like The West Wing and The American President, we finally have a show which goes behind the platitudes and gets closer to the true nature of political power.  Even better, the main character is a Democrat. For once, we are presented with a show which destroys the veneer of self-righteous moral rectitude that has been so assiduously constructed around the cult of liberalism through years of Hollywood and media propaganda.

    House of Cards is basically the inverse West Wing.  It is a breath of fresh air for so many reasons, but mostly because it reveals how our relationship to power fuels every pathological tendency you can identify. The true conduit and amplifier of deceit, duplicity, vindictiveness, avarice, manipulation, spite, and violence is, for once, correctly identified.  After a seemingly endless parade of films and shows which demonize capitalism and money as the source of evil in the world, HoC points the finger in the right direction by focusing on state power.  HoC also reveals the political process as the zero-sum game that it is. All of the idiotic clichés that are routinely ascribed to capitalism (e.g. “dog eat dog”, “kill or be killed”) are more accurately represented as descriptions of life in government.

    With a career that already has many iconic performances, Kevin Spacey’s portrayal of Frank Underwood is easily among his finest.  Frank Underwood is the ultimate Machiavellian antihero; the Majority Whip in the House of Representatives who describes himself as a plumber who “keeps the sludge moving”. When his bid for Secretary of State is rebuffed by the newly elected, charismatic president, Frank sets his sights on getting his due. He’s the guy who will stop at nothing to get what he wants, but he’ll win because he already has you figured out and you’re drawn in by his wry smile and gentle southern drawl. You don’t know that he’s slipped the knife in your back until it’s too late.

    In the opening scene of Season 1, Frank discovers an injured dog which belongs to his neighbors. He sees that the dog is suffering, but he takes it upon himself to kill the dog before reporting the incident to his neighbors. Why? Simply because it must be done.  Frank is terrifying because his conscience is completely unclouded by doubt or fear.  At the same time, you kind of admire him for his ruthlessness, his masterful manipulations and dispassionate sense of purpose. Frank is the perfect sociopath. He is always calculating the odds and he’s always two moves ahead.

    Robin Wright’s icy performance as Claire Underwood is a perfect complement to the cunning sociopathy of Spacey’s Frank. With a set of dubious morals combined with a strangely believable devotion to her husband, the Underwoods are undoubtedly partially modeled after the Clintons.  Claire is also the executive of the Clean Water Initiative and the subplots involving the CWI provide some refreshing commentary on the myriad ways that even the most seemingly altruistic endeavors make common cause with jackals of the state.

    Kate Mara does a brilliant job as the narcissistic, fame seeking journalist, Zoe Barnes.  Zoe strikes up a relationship with Frank which proves fruitful for her career at first, but discovers the real courage that one needs to have ethics and pursue the truth as a journalist.  Zoe’s tale offers poignant editorial on the ascendancy of clickbait journalism, the way politicians use the media to manufacture public opinion, as well as the ways in which women use their sexual wiles to get what they want.

    Corey Stoll turns in a great performance as the doomed representative from Pennsylvania, Pete Russo. Russo is an idealistic freshman from a working class district whose moral compass and sense of self-control are already compromised and only degenerate further once he arrives in Congress. His story is a vivid reminder that fallible humans who are bestowed with power which exempts them from moral judgment and isolates them from the consequences of their actions is something that should be avoided at all costs. It is simultaneously a cautionary tale of the seduction of state power as well as the price one pays when loyalty takes precedence over principles.

    By far, the best aspect of the show is that it is an extended exploration of power and the ways that it pollutes, perverts and destroys every fiber of human decency in those who wield it or crave it.  All too often, politicians point the finger at corporations and blame money as the sole force of corruption in politics, but they’re engaging in a game of misdirection.  The political apparatus is inherently corrupt because it is inhabited by people who sell corruption in the first place! This show is honest about this fact. Frank says it best when he expresses his disappointment at a former assistant turned lobbyist:

    Such a waste of talent. He chose money over power. In this town, a mistake nearly everyone makes. Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I cannot respect someone who doesn’t see the difference.

    HoC is blessedly free of the tiresome trend towards gender correctness and takes aim at the scurrilous nature of identity politics.  With so many films and shows bending over backwards to kowtow to the Cult of Feminism by portraying the now obligatory Strong Female Character or the endless grating paeans to multiculturalism dutifully regurgitated by irritating social justice warriors, HoC commits the unspeakable transgression of portraying women and minorities as…FLAWED. I know! It’s hard to believe, but they went there.

    The women make bad choices in men. They display insecurity, vindictiveness, and pettiness. The black and Latino characters aren’t just there to fill some checkbox of progressive virtue as prescribed by the Multicultural Politburo. They’re believable well-rounded characters with foibles and shortcomings.

    The show fearlessly tackles the petty politics of character assassination that are all too commonplace nowadays.  Nowadays, you don’t need an actual Star Chamber. Thanks to identity politics, you can crucify people in the court of opinion and ruin their lives in ways that are worse than any state sanctioned tribunal could ever do. Zoe Barnes uses her sexuality to gain access and influence with men, but is more than willing to play sexual politics to ruin the reputation of her employer after he calls her a cunt.  Frank is more than willing to exploit his wife and lie about her emotional distress to discredit a labor attorney and win sympathy from the public in order to avoid getting destroyed in a televised debate.

    The moment that’s perhaps most emblematic of the pernicious confluence of identity politics and character assassination is a funny scene in which Russo is deployed to visit a “libertarian drug fiend marinating in a trailer home” to get dirt on the character that was nominated for Secretary of State over Frank.  Russo’s job was simply to ascertain whether Kern penned an article unsympathetic to Israel while in college.  He didn’t, but it didn’t matter.  The innuendo that proliferated through the mediasphere was enough. Kern’s nomination for Secretary of State was torpedoed, he got branded a racist and was consigned to oblivion anyway.

    Simply put, House of Cards is a treasure trove of viewing pleasure.  Premium channels have been a fertile ground for cutting-edge television in recent years, and kudos to Netflix for having the stones to put this out.  This is a show for the ages.  Highly recommended.

    image