The Red-Pill Progression

First, you get red-pilled about women (and, at some point, you start to look around, wondering “what else did they lie to me about?”).

Then, you get red-pilled about race (and in America, that first means blacks. Then, at some point, you start to wonder about all the other races here…).

Then, you get red-pilled about the JQ (and, at some point, you start to read up on (((their))) history).

Then (my prediction), the last red-pill before it all comes crashing down is the red-pill about usury (because when you start messing with the money, that’s when wars start).

An article so good, I’m posting it before I even finish reading it. It’s a long one, and a small gripe I have with articles like these is that instead of spending so much effort to define Liberalism, they could just say Gnosticism and call it a day. It explains everything, which now leads me to a disagreement I have with this particular article: Liberalism isn’t irrational or unjustifiable, at least to it’s congregants. They have a moral orthodoxy, which gives their acts rational justification under that system.

That aside, I’ll reiterate that it’s an article so good, I’m posting about it before I even finish reading it.

Empire of Hatred: An Attempt at Defining Liberalism

Here’s the passage concerning usury, with my highlights in the bold:

 

This change arose most clearly in the economic sphere. To get an idea of this progression, I want to look specifically at the practice of usury. The acceptance of usury is one of the foundations of modern economics, and had the English not justified the practice, it is difficult to believe the capitalist engine could have ever been revved.

There is no justification for usury, that is, the taking of a profit on unproductive loans. It gives unaccountable power to a class of people who provide no productive labor, subjugates those taking out usurious loans to the prospect of lifelong indemnity, and transforms the character of economic activity from one of industry to that of a roulette wheel. As such, usury was condemned in a single voice by the philosopher as ruinous to the state, and the priest as ultimately destructive of a man’s immortal soul. The practice was universally condemned in the medieval world; it was tolerated only amongst wretches, in Cobbett’s memorable words, “for the same cause incest is tolerated amongst dogs.”

Yet usury found a defender in a former Defender of the Faith, and in the years after Henry VIII’s usurpation of spiritual matters in England, usury more and more found acceptance, an outcome that would have been impossible were it not for the very particular social circumstances of that time, that is, the existence of a large proto-bourgeoisie grown rich from Henry’s looting of Church lands, and a large vulnerable underclass created out of the same theft. The continued economic turmoil wrought from the theft of Church lands, the decline in industry and resulting necessity for state welfare, and the Tudors’ financial wantonness created the need for funds, and of course usury was an easy means of acquiring them. Without these particular circumstances, it is difficult to believe the mass of people in England would have allowed such a crime to continue.

And yet none of the bare facts about usury had changed. Surely its growing use was a sign of tyranny. There have been many tyrants in history, yet we know just as well that such tyrants eventually have their fall. But the vices and oppressions of the 16th Century had the benefit of coming about when the English people were in the process of radically redefining themselves as a people. A new philosophy was arising that required men take up the tyrant’s yoke and consider it sweet. How could this be justified on the grand scale? Here are the words of Sir Francis Bacon, which are incredibly telling given Bacon’s preeminent place in the Age of Reason. Instead of condemning usury, the state should license certain lenders to commit the crime. He continues:

“Let these licensed lenders be in number indefinite, but restrained to certain principal cities and towns of merchandizing; for then they will be hardly able to colour other men’s moneys in the country: so as the licence of nine will not suck away the current rate of five; for no man will lend his moneys far off, nor put them into unknown hands. If it be objected that this doth, in a sort, authorize usury, which before was in some places but permissive; the answer is, it is better to mitigate usury by declaration, that to suffer it to rage by connivance.”

All states allow certain vices so as to possibly prevent worse behavior to the overall detriment of the social good. Yet in just states, these permissive measures are allowed with the understanding that man’s personal faults can never be wholly eradicated, and the harm done in trying would not be worth the meager benefits. But these allowances are in regard to personal vices inherent to man’s individual nature, not those vices created or enabled by the social environment itself.

Usury is not a personal vice, but a public one. It has no existence outside social transactions, and cannot but harm other men by its practice. At the same time, no one is so naïve as to claim that medieval loansharks were ever completely without a clientele. Yet there is a great difference between a crime conducted out in the open versus the shadows of Skid Road, a crime which is regulated versus a crime which is allowed, but always with the proviso that its practice could be throttled at any time at the discretion of the state. In adopting the tactic of regulation, the state acquires financial benefits for allowing such vice. The state becomes a necessary partner in the criminal enterprise, and any prior questions about the morality of the practice falls away and is replaced by an alternate analysis, one in which the total society-wide effect is assessed, not its effect on the individual.

Given our fallen nature, we well know that man is prone to crimes like usury. But to accept this fact, and even to tolerate some evils in practice, knowing that it is in vain to try to squelch all of them, is far different from providing sustenance to those crimes, which all forms of regulation materially are. And as incentives shift for the state to allow more and more of a vice, it will find that the social body can bear a larger and larger area of that gangrenous growth. Thus, in the case of usury, one can completely admit that much evil will come from it, but preventing such evil is costly, and such costs might be spent on other social endeavors. Tolerating the existence of vice in our intellects has transformed into manifestly aiding them.

In a system which regulates rather than condemns crimes, man’s relation to right and wrong—that fulcrum from which our relationship to God and our fellow man depends—is now mediated by our relation to the entire population. And this is the characteristic of liberal morality as compared to independent assessments of bad and good. Liberal morality is created not by man’s rational determination of his situation in the universe, his relation to Nature and the social world, but as a dependent variable in the sea of other dependent variables—something like the way prices are determined in neoclassical economics. Man’s moral nature is at the mercy of society at large; it is socialized.

Note that through all this, the idea of usury is still squalid and immoral; but this has been drowned out by the function of the market, the thousand other vices of avarice now regulated by the ballooning state, the specious reasoning of the economists, and the ultimate transformation of man himself into homo economicus, who sees the world in eat-or-be-eaten terms, and owes his fellow man no more than the what the Golden Rule demands: That if he is able to commit usury on his neighbor, his neighbor is just as “free” to seek usury from him. This reciprocity in exploitation is called “justice”—and it is steadfastly maintained as a form of justice, for to say that such actions are simply might equaling right would be to give away the lie. Though liberal changes always separate us from reason and morality, our most human attributes, they nonetheless will not allow man to be cognizant of that he has descended to the level of animal exploitation. Man must still be assured that he is operating on some the basis of some higher ethos, an expanded godhead which miraculously allows for vice.

From this dynamic arose Hobbes’s mighty Leviathan, the very notion of which shows the corruption wrought by adoption of liberal mores. Man, the political animal, does not need a great impetus to form tribes, cities, nations. Man is a social being, and is more himself in society than he is apart, and even more himself in a just society than an unjust one. Yet man needs some special impetus to join a covenant of injustice, some mutual assurance that his skirting of moral law will not be punished; that, like criminals in a gang, all have the same motive not to defect lest the crime be exposed. This is what Hobbes envisioned the state to be—and given the state of 17th Century England, he was correct in his assessment. The social contract of the Hobbesian Englishman was that he would enter into such a unjust pact; in return would arise the Leviathan—that beast which God holds out to Job as the summit of his awful power.

***Update***

Just finished reading the whole thing, and I’m sad to say, don’t read the whole thing. Just read the passage above, or read the article up until the section “Liberalism as an Attack on the Real Presence.” After that, it devolves into an unconvincing anti-Protestant screed. Most of it is directed at Calvin, and the concept of Election, or Predestination, which is not even exclusively Protestant. Most Protestants don’t believe in it, while Catholics themselves believe in Election, although they may differ in their description of it. See Thomas Aquinas. Also, see the book of John, chapter 6, to read about Election in Christ’s own words. Or read Romans 9 for the words of the apostle Paul. I could keep listing others, but that’ll surely do.

While I’m not arguing Sola Scriptura here, I am saying that Election/Predestination is about as plainly spoken in Scripture as it can be. If those two chapters don’t convince you, then I give up.

I’m also not saying that the Protestand Reformation/Revolution didn’t contribute to the Liberal Leviathan. Others have argued this, convincingly. I’m saying that this author’s arguments are shrill and lame. What a shame. Up to that point, he had me hooked, but then he lost me. But hey, nobody’s perfect, and that’s what discernment is for, right? Cling to the good, throw away the garbage.

Advertisements

High + Low vs. the Middle

If you aren’t familiar with the phrase “High + Low vs. the Middle,” then you need to ask somebody. It’s what our political elites are doing, at least on the left. Promising gibs to minorities, in exchange for votes. The business elites do it, but they want cheap labor. All of it at the expense of the Middle Class. Gibs is a catch-all slur, and we usually take it to mean money, food, healthcare, etc., but it also means promising more power to the lower end of the social spectrum, so that they can achieve equality.

I think I first read this phrase from Steve Sailer, and it seemed to me like some kind of new thing. It’s not. This is actually a natural impulse. If you look at any given country, culture, nation, area, etc. and identify the power centers, you can see very easily that all the power centers compete with one another, in order to expand their power. They have too. In a perfect world, we would share, but it’s not a perfect world, and if even one power center tries to expand, then it has to do so at the expense of one or any number of other power centers, which threatens their security. So now it’s game on.

Additionally, all power centers have to believe themselves to be legitimate, and beneficial to those over which they rule. If their security is threatened, they not only fear the loss of power, but, in almost all cases, believe the well-being of their subjects to be threatened as well. So, if one can garner the support of the commoners, that gives a tremendous edge in the power struggle. The commoners have to be convinced, however, and what better to convince them with than the promise of more equality with their betters?

An outstanding post at Social Matter about this: An Introduction To Power Through The Lens Of Bertrand de Jouvenel

My only argument is that this history of High + Low vs. the Middle didn’t go back far enough.

Gnosticism Sighting in PA

Gnosticism noticing is about as old as Gnosticism itself, but since Gnosticism keeps changing it’s names, the noticer often doesn’t know exactly what he’s noticing.

From the Required Reading list, PA posted two iconic speeches: Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream (ghey), and Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s A World Split Apart. Read both, and decide for yourself which one is superior.

You can guess which one I liked.

Somewhere in the middle of A World Torn Apart you’ll find this:

“This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man — the master of the world — does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected.”

Solzhenitsyn noticed pure Gnosticism, even if he didn’t recognize it as such.

Shout out to PA, one of the coolest bloggers in the sphere, especially for a polack.

 

Back to the Citadel

He’s been out of the game for a little while now, which is a shame for us, because Mark Citadel is one of the most powerful, incisive writers on the Alt-Right.

This isn’t a Gnosticism sighting, I’m just posting it because I’m so damn glad to read Mark’s work again. RTWT, it’s a vicious take-down of a neocon bugman.

The Patriarch and the Moral Mosquito

Gnosticism Sighting: Manichean Villainy!

From Bonald: Enough with villainy!

Manicheism was a highly successful Gnostic, dualistic cult. Our modren Manicheans are much harsher in dualistic vision, however. All is light or dark, and the light has no comprehension of darkness (but the darkness can comprehend the light, which may be the light’s undoing).

Reading that back to myself, that seems awfully damn cryptic, so just read Bonald, and RTWT, it’s a classic. Too many lines to quote, but I’ll go with this one:

“It is no longer considered a virtue to be able to see things from the other side. I’ve been shocked at how often university personnel, whom one might expect to pride themselves on their broad-mindedness, boast about how they don’t understand how conservatives and Christians think. To understand them would be a discredit, suggesting a commonality of nature with these demon figures.”

Pay the Fiddler

Congress just passed another bloated, unintelligible “budget.” With all the serious problems facing our nation, the literal and existential threats to our country, it’s comforting to know that they were able to tackle at least one of the pressing issues of our time: the Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Act.

This is where democracy has led us. How many billable hours were spent on this? Who could possibly discuss this bill without falling asleep? If there is such a person, do we want him to rule over us?

It’s funny, but it’s maddening. Congress spends time that we pay them for to figure out ever more minute and banal ways to regulate every single aspect of our lives, and to squeeze every single penny out of it’s poor, ignorant subjects. Why not a Confiscation of Coins Wedged In Car Seats Act?

Our country is polarized, heading towards civil war. Our economy is leveraged beyond all imagination, heading towards financial catastrophe. But somehow, they managed to craft this piece of legislation.

Who could manage to stay awake long enough to discuss this bill, and figure out a way to profit from it? Lawyers, that’s who. I’ve said it before, if a lawyer wants to work for the government, he should be in the Judicial Branch. Not the Legislative, or the Executive, because this is the shit they’ll dream up. And you know this isn’t the only ridiculous bill in the new “budget.”

This is the lawyer version of fiddling while Rome burns.