Driving the Point Home

Quotes from a very good article I found.

“The playbook of the establishment is very simple and very effective: claim that questioners of diversity are driven by plain hatred, that they are poorly-educated hicks who can’t stand losing their white privilege, and are too parochial to understand the progressive cosmopolitanism marvelously spreading through the West.”

“Through these major epochs, Europeans came to de-emphasize the martial virtues associated with feudalism, and as they turned to commerce, new virtues came to gain precedence: commodious living, orderly existence, and the Protestant emphasis on hard work (notwithstanding the excessive brutality of the religious wars and the interstate rivalries resulting from nation-building during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). David Hume, in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1777), noted this transformation from the martial temper of medieval times to the “sociable, good-natured, humane, merciful, grateful, friendly, generous, beneficent” qualities of the moderns.”

Clearly, Hume understands the origins of cosmopolitan morality.

So yes, the excessive empowerment of the third estate through laissez-faire capitalism (edit: currently through Neoliberal Ayn Rand ideology) clearly has something to do with the pacification of Western nations to their own destruction, and it’s not just da Jooz, it’s the entire socio-economic phenomenon which has atomized and de-masculinized Western men.

Update 4/15/17: This is not to argue in favor of socialism, but for the recognition of how capitalism has changed the social structure of the West in such a way that previously masculine virtues like defending your own tribe have become de-facto sins simply because they are a hindrance or of no use in the marketplace. As far as I am concerned, economics is not something to fetishize and ‘muh free market’ is not an end in itself.

Advertisements

The Progressive Fallacy

I first learned about the naturalistic fallacy (an is is not an ought) in a philosophy course I took recently in which we studied David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (which should also probably be a favorite among the HBD crowd). The naturalistic fallacy is probably one of the main advantages which progressives have over conservatives, as it gives them an excuse to destabilize society by changing the demographic and cultural status quo from what is naturally desired, homogeneity, to what is more “progressive”, “diversity”. However, we must remember that the logical framework which we are working with is largely a creature of the Whig/liberal academic establishment. I would like to propose a new fallacy: A can is not a should; this is the progressive fallacy. Perhaps using more formal language it could be called the potentiality fallacy, or the fallacy of potentiality. The essence of this fallacy is the equation of potentiality with value. If anyone else has articulated this fallacy before, I would like to know, as I would be somewhat surprised if I were the first one to do so. Maybe this new fallacy will help solve the problem of the leftward ratchet and Cthulhu always swimming left.