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.

An exemplary application: just because you can create a cosmopolitan society of atomized individuals, does not mean that you should.

Or, perhaps more controversially: just because you can genetically engineer humans (or any other organism for that matter) does not mean that you should.

On the Metaphysics of Anti-Naturalistic Thought

I highly suspect that the idea that natural desires are evil, or must be beaten down, has its origins in various ascetical, anti-naturalistic, ways of approaching life. One must admit that there was a massive increase in asceticism in the West with the introduction of Christianity. In any case, anti-naturalistic thought seems to have a basis in life-denying, world-denying religions, the most extreme of which is Gnosticism. Nietzsche countered this anti-naturalistic tendency by arguing that the Overman is one who is able to accept his natural desires and emotions and use them towards constructive ends (source). It is, therefore, interesting that the liberal secularist website Rational Wiki has a somewhat positive view of Nietzsche, and yet it is infested with SJWs who hate the natural emotional desire of Europeans and European Americans to live among their own people and form their own ethnostates. The wisdom which Nietzsche expresses here regarding natural drives is nothing new and seems to echo what I have researched regarding the chakras. This is because it implies that one must first accept and hone the ‘lower’, more ‘irrational’, corporeal drives of one’s self (rather than ignoring or suppressing them) in order to master one’s higher powers, such as the intellect, and spiritual consciousness. See this very good article on the chakras for more information (use Google translate; it’s in Spanish).

In summary: a rootless tree falls. Natural ‘irrational’ desires and emotions are not inherently bad, nor are the traditionalism and romanticism which are based in them, as these are what ultimately keep us grounded and provide a solid foundation for the more mutable aspects of our existence.

One way of portraying Nietzsche’s Overman/Superman/Ubermensch:

Chakra Meditation 2560x1536 by Minyassa
Chakra Meditation 2560×1536 by Minyassa on DeviantArt



Liberalism as a Derivative of Nominalism

I have recently been watching a series of videos explaining the origins of modern Western Liberalism in the Nominalist philosophical movement which emerged in Europe during the High Middle Ages. I will post the videos below. The author of the video series, however, does not explain the possible origins of Nominalism in the anti-Essentialism and anti-intellectualism found in the Bible itself (Gal. 3:28, Prov. 3:7, 1 Cor. 1:25), and how this anti-Essentialism was tempered for a period of time by the Church’s adoption of Hellenic (mostly Platonic and Aristotlean) philosophy, but later let loose by the Sola Scriptura of the Protestant Reformation. This untempered anti-Essentialism, particularly present in Evangelical Protestant Christianity (but also to an extent in Catholicism), appears to be what Nietzsche begins to react against as explained in Part 5.  After watching these you should be able to understand the Nominalist roots of feminism, transgenderism, and race denialism. It should also be clear why political correctness has a much tighter grip on the populace in countries with a historical Protestant presence like America, Canada, Britain, Germany, and Sweden, than more Catholic and Orthodox countries such as Spain, Italy, and most of Eastern Europe including Russia.