The Revolution Devours Her Young

I remarked the other day that for all practical purposes Islam cannot any longer attack the West except by attacking liberal institutions; for, the institutions of the West are all liberal.

But the same is of course true for liberals themselves. The only way they can attack the Establishment is by attacking liberals, because the Establishment is pervasively liberal. There are no right wing institutions out there, other than a few think tanks and magazines that don’t have budgets for the sorts of jobs that liberals are fit to do, with the result that few liberals infest their offices.

Who now is the Left attacking, and destroying? The Progressives who run the universities. Schadenfreude ain’t in it.

62 thoughts on “The Revolution Devours Her Young

  1. Pingback: The Revolution Devours Her Young | Neoreactive

  2. Pingback: The Revolution Devours Her Young | Reaction Times

  3. I can guarantee not ONE of the people dismissed or forced to step down at America’s universities held a SINGLE race realist viewpoint. They were however unable to jump through the million and one hoops to avoid ‘microaggressing’ people, and so despite obviously being good liberals they are branded for life. White liberals are entering the Trotsky phase.

  4. And, as we’ve seen again and again, liberal institutions have no defenses on their left flank. On their right flank they have built a Maginot Line. On their left, its Belgium!

    This is often pointed out in discussions of campus unrest in the 1960s, and goes a long way towards explaining why those liberal professors and administrators were so easily rolled by radical students. We see it once again, today, although so far on a much smaller scale.

    Once these things get started, the revolution begins to eat its own because selection pressure at the top is for ruthlessness and ideological purity. The Rotarian backslappers that sit in the president’s chair at most universities are defenseless against this.

  5. Because this is an arms race, to see who is doctrinally purest, the criteria of doctrinal purity gallop leftward faster than anyone can track and adapt to them. It gets easier and easier to offend without intending to. If no one is offending, then crises will be manufactured (as with the hoax gaffer tape on the portraits of black Harvard Law professors) so as to provide pretexts for extortion, show trials, mob actions, and fuller-throated protestations of outrage from the docile herd all looking out for their own skins.

    But there’s no way to win this game by playing it. If you keep playing, you will be destroyed sooner or later. You can win only by stepping out of it, and attacking the game. That’s what Trump is now doing. Trump has stepped out of the circular firing squad. This will spread – has already spread, even into the ranks of the Left (Mother Jones just denounced Obama’s insanity about the “Syrian” “refugees”).

    As the autophagous frenzy of the Left grows ever more intense and irreal, conditions apt to a counter-revolution more and more prevail. This phase is like the high pitch of a fever, just before one of two things happen: the fever breaks, having destroyed the microbial invaders, and the patient wakes from his sweaty nightmare, weak but clear again in mind; or it doesn’t, and the patient dies.

    • “But there’s no way to win this game by playing it. If you keep playing, you will be destroyed sooner or later. You can win only by stepping out of it, and attacking the game. That’s what Trump is now doing. Trump has stepped out of the circular firing squad. This will spread – has already spread, even into the ranks of the Left (Mother Jones just denounced Obama’s insanity about the “Syrian” “refugees”).”

      It’s good to see you appreciate the Trumpenkrieg.

      Due to his history of being mentored by Roy Cohn, one of the original John Birchers, it should be pretty obvious that Trump is doing a persona in a bid to energize the masses. To win an election in Clown World, you have become the Clown Prince.

      The coming turn over will be brutal.

  6. Great post. There is nobody to attack and exterminate besides liberals, so the “authentic” mob has to get its blood from anyone with authority at all, including die hard liberals. Simply having authority and exercising it in an attempt to make things function is too much illiberalism to tolerate. Even unprincipled exceptions must be exterminated: that is what distinguishes left liberalism from right liberalism, and right liberalism is inherently unstable.

  7. At one time “liberalism” and “the left” were distinguishable phenomena, although obviously related, having common sources in Modern philosophy. When liberalism had more or less eliminated its competition from the right, at least as far as holding any kind of institutional power and authority in the West goes, liberalism began to move towards the left, and the left began to switch from classical Marxism to what we now call “cultural Marxism”. As a consequence the left has become increasingly illiberal (which is not the same thing as anti-liberal) and we are now seeing what Kristor has described above, a left that has turned against liberalism.

  8. I’ve never bought into the idea that leftism is different from (and implicitly nastier or less civilized than) liberalism itself. It is just the nature of liberalism that its current ascendant form, which we are calling leftism, turns against and devours its previous form, which we call liberalism. Today’s leftists will become tomorrow’s liberals, and will be marched into the gas chambers by tomorrow’s leftists.

    Liberalism is *not* kinder and gentler than leftism: they just are the same thing, seen as successive generations of the same political commitments working themselves out in concrete reality.

    Consider three generations of liberalism. G1 is condemned by G2 as insufficient liberal. G1 calls itself “liberalism” and G2 “leftism”.

    Now G3 comes along and condemns G2 as insufficiently liberal. To G1, it looks like G3 has abandoned liberalism entirely. But that is just because G1 are liberals.

    Unless we are liberals ourselves (that is, unless we have unexamined and unrepudiated liberal commitments ourselves), we won’t see leftism and liberalism as fundamentally different.

    • I don’t think that leftism being “nastier” or “less civilized” than liberalism, or liberalism being “kinder” or “gentler” than leftism was quite what I had in mind when I said that they were distinguishable. If anything, liberalism was always the more dangerous of the two because it presented itself in a way that had a greater general appeal. It was more that they had distinct agendas that did not always line up with each other, and indeed, contradicted each other. What they shared, of course, in their mutual opposition to God, Christianity, the Church, tradition, natural authority, and pretty much everything a traditionalist believes in, was always greater than these differences. In the last century the differences which seemed irreconcilable – liberalism’s belief in the free market versus leftism’s belief in a centrally-planned socialism – have largely been reconciled, due, at least in part, to the process we have been discussing. Thus, the common ground between the two is now much more significant than the differences which would have made their equation seem absurd to someone living in the early twentieth-century. Which, of course, makes is rather ironic that the left of today is turning on establishment liberals, although, as you say, it is a cycle that has happened in the past.

      • Gerry T. Neal:

        It was more that [liberalism and leftism] had distinct agendas that did not always line up with each other, and indeed, contradicted each other.

        The current incarnation of right liberalism always has a different policy agenda, in the sense of favoring different tactics and metrics, than the current incarnation of left liberalism, sure. They still do, and in fact there are more than two ‘kinds’ if we are making distinctions based on policy agendas.

        But they have always and still do agree when it comes to their basic view of what politics is about and what justifies the exercise of political authority. Indeed that is precisely why the left (new) generation of liberalism always turns on the right (older) generation of liberalism.

        (What takes the whole thing through the looking glass is that the principles upon which all liberals agree – that the primary purpose of politics is to secure freedom and equal rights – are incoherent; so, by the principle of explosion, they logically imply everything and its opposite all at once, although in practice this is constrained by the reality in which we are situated).

        As Chip Harding suggests below the nature of the liberal insect hivemind is that the offspring always devour the parents; and then the offspring become surprised after time passes and they find themselves old and surrounded by larvae with knives.

        I guess I am suggesting that there really isn’t a ‘right liberalism’ and a ‘left liberalism’, let alone a categorically different ‘liberalism’ and ‘leftism’. There is a current ascendant liberalism, its immediate predecessor, and then prior generations before that. It is a mistake to view the little wasp nest we saw in 1776 or 1789 as something different from the monstrous hive we see today.

        But even this generational model projects a discreteness onto what is really a continuous process.

  9. It seems to me they’re attacking their own less extreme elements. Their parents, not their children.

    They will continue to do that until they have consolidated power so completely that there’s no need for a revolutionary avant garde any more. Then the leader starts killing off the most extreme elements in order to stop the craziness. Chairman Mao did this after the cultural Revolution, Stalin did it in the 30s.

    • CH, I am not one for conspiracy theories, but there is a belief out there that Cultural Marxism (which is a Jewish combination of Marxism and Freudianism) were used as “useful idiots” by Stalin as a way to destabilize America. Stalin knew that Cultural Marxists had no real use beyond destroying countries so Cultural Marxists were sent to the gulag and/or killed within the Soviet Union but encouraged outside of it. The USSR actually held to a very traditional morality when it came to sexuality, marriage, and the family*

      Unfortunately, even after the death of Stalin and the USSR, this ideology of anti-civilization remained. Julius Evola has mentioned that “Americanism” (the especially poisonous combination of crony capitalism, consumerism, and Cultural Marxism that unfortunately defines America today) was going to be worse for Europe than Communism could ever be. He was right.

      *You can see a remnant of this when the Communist Party of Russia allied with the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party and conservative A Just Russia (it says it’s center-left but those are it’s economic views, it was formed from three hard right Russia parties) and United Russia (Putin’s party) recently to stand against the gay rights proposals of leftist Westernizers.

  10. @Kristor – Your analysis is true – but perhaps not really new.

    I have known several people in evolutionary biology/ psychology who have been the subject of PC witch hunts, and most were left/ liberal atheist progressives.

    Some have suffered badly, but so far as I know none have abandoned their left/ liberal/ progressive stance – none have become religious.

    I think the pattern of modern Leftist is similar to Soviet Communism – nobody is safe; anybody can become a victim. This is a natural consequence of New Leftism being essentially oppositional and destructive.

    • Richard Dawkins would be an example of what you are talking about, Dr. Charlton. He was accused by many of his fellow leftist atheists of basically writing National Front propaganda back when his first books were becoming popular.

    • I can understand being an atheist and an evolutionary biologist but I don’t understand how you can be a liberal/lefty and an evolutionary biologist.

      I mean, Charles Darwin was an atheist (or maybe agnostic) but he was definitely not a leftist/liberal. For a scientist, the cognitive dissonance of being both a believer in evolution and in Cultural Marxist Leftism must take either a huge hamster or an unbelievable amount of intellectual dishonesty to overlook.

      It always makes me laugh when liberals claim to be scientifically literate. I love dropping Philip Jensen, Gregory Cochran, Nicholas V Wade, Cavalli-Sforza, Sir Richard Francis Burton, Salter, and Darwin on liberals. It’s like watching a cartoonish depiction of a robot fusing out.

      I was talking to some (Christian) liberal classmate of mine and I asked her if she believed in evolution and she was like “yes, of course!”. And then I asked her, “Well, then how can you believe in equality then? Have you ever read anything by Darwin?”

      She was speechless.

      • I don’t think you understand what leftist equality means (to be fair, there is a lot of confusion about it even on the left). It doesn’t mean everyone has exactly equal capabilities, it means every human has an equal guarantee of rights and dignity simply by virtue of being human. It’s a rather old-fashioned idea in some ways, and with deep roots in Christianity.

        For my part, I’m puzzled how Christians (which presumably believe that every human soul is valuable) can be so attached to the hyper-darwinian, Nietzchean, vision of life as a constant struggle in which only the strong deserve to survive. Maybe that is the way the world is, but if so it seems radically incompatible with Christianity, which has mercy as a core value.

        Also see here.

      • “To be fair there’s a lot of confusion about it even on the left.”

        Exactly! That’s what he’s getting at in his anecdote.

        It’s what the term means in actual practice that concerns us. As in, e.g., “one man, one vote” and “universal suffrage.” Etc…

      • “I don’t think you understand what leftist equality means (to be fair, there is a lot of confusion about it even on the left). It doesn’t mean everyone has exactly equal capabilities, it means every human has an equal guarantee of rights and dignity simply by virtue of being human. It’s a rather old-fashioned idea in some ways, and with deep roots in Christianity.”

        Looks like you’re behind the curve. Equality now means equal outcomes and if equal outcomes are not occurring, that means that the underachieving group is oppressed. It doesn’t matter what you believe, that is the prevailing SJW/Cultural Marxist/”Liberal” view.

        “For my part, I’m puzzled how Christians (which presumably believe that every human soul is valuable) can be so attached to the hyper-darwinian, Nietzchean, vision of life as a constant struggle in which only the strong deserve to survive. Maybe that is the way the world is, but if so it seems radically incompatible with Christianity, which has mercy as a core value.”

        I don’t think you have any right to claim Evolution as a Cultural Marxist thing anymore than you do telling people what the Faith is about. Of course life is about struggle! Even the Bible acknowledges this but you don’t need either the Bible, or Darwin, or Nietszche to know that, you just need eyes! Even the beasts instinctively know that this life is struggle. Mercy is given to those who are truly repentant by God. Mercy is given to defeated enemies. It’s not given to enemies who are still actively fighting us.

        Unfortunately, your values are neither affirmed by the physical world nor the metaphysical world. Your worldview is based in dialectical materialism which ironically ends up becoming a sort of gnosticism as detailed by Eric Voegelin.

      • More important, A.morphous, I think you’re just throwing red herrings around. The focus was not on Christians the focus was on how Gnostic Cultural Marxists could claim scientific literacy when the science is clearly against their most deeply held beliefs.

        For example men and women both have equally valuable souls in the eyes of God, but they most definitely do not have equal abilities. Pick up a book by an actual scientist and you’ll be surprised to see what you’ll learn.

        Unfortunately due to the dismal nature of academia thanks to the Cultural Marxist Weltanschauung, scientists now have to prove “What” instead of just focusing on “Why” and “How” like they’re supposed to. If you feel the need to prove what your eye can readily observe, then you are most definitely a Gnostic, not a rational believer in science and reason.

      • I don’t think arguing from evolution really benefits our cause. The ideology attached to evolution is one in which reality as it actually is is bad and needs to be replaced. It essentially rejects the connection between is and ought, and so it doesn’t contradict a goal of “make everyone equal”, since it’s essentially nihilist and doesn’t recognize any objective standard of good other than “change”.

      • If we try to argue from evolution under the metaphysical terms that neo-Darwinians such as Dawkins customarily employ – that there is in nature no such thing really as good or bad, but rather only sheer happenstance – then I think that you are right in saying that it does us no good.

        But if we argue from evolution under essentialist terms – as even Peter Singer seems prepared to do, from the article that a.morphous linked – then we are making what amounts to Natural Law arguments. And I think those can help us a great deal.

        Our adversaries will not therefore want to let us argue from an essentialist perspective. They are not stupid; they intuit that essentialism is an arrow aimed at the Achilles heel of modernism. We should respond with relentless, pitiless demolitions of their purblind self-refuting metaphysics, cutting their legs out from under them.

      • If we’re arguing natural law, then we’re arguing for definite ends which things are naturally oriented to. This is directly contrary to evolution, which is about perpetual change (perpetual revolution if you will) directed toward nothing in particular. Evolution is not an essentialist idea, it basically denies the reality of speciation, since according to it the line between me and an ape is not categorically different from the line between me and you. If reduced to its necessary metaphysics, it basically asserts that at best there is one species, living creatures*, and all living creatures are different instantiations of this species.

        *This is, under the best evolutionary metaphysics. Most metaphysics promoted by evolutionists don’t even regard being alive as essentially different from not being alive.

      • I grant all that, with one exception: we can’t let the ateleologists keep the term “evolution” all to themselves. While the metaphysic most evolutionists espouse is just as you say, there is no reason that evolution properly so called must be bound by that metaphysic. I.e., evolution is just as possible under an essentialist, Natural Law metaphysic as it is under the ateleology of most biologists. Indeed, more so; for, only under essentialism can we treat species as truly disparate categories, or therefore begin to ask how species evolved – how one species evolved into several distinct and disparate species. If you don’t have truly different things, then it can’t make sense to ask how one of them turned into another.

        “Evolution” can mean “‘out-rolling’ of forms.” It should: the whole nisus of biology is to understand living phenomena under the aspect of general principles: forms and rules for their permutations (such rules being the specifications of teloi and their operations). To suggest that there are no forms or rules is to assert that there is no subject matter for the science of biology – nothing for it to discover.

      • What I’m saying is that the metaphysics I mentioned are the metaphysics of evolution. Under evolution, it is possible for a bacteria to be the ancestor of an animal. If that’s true, then bacteria and animals aren’t essentially different species, just different races.

        You say that only with essentialism can species be treated as different categories, and this is true. The problem is that evolution effectively denies the reality of special difference.

        And of course, evolutionary metaphysics contradict how biologists study actual, presently existing life, since actual study of biology requires teleology.

      • The difficulty you notice in what you call the metaphysics of evolution applies to all change, all motion whatever, when motion is conceived as continuous. Continuous evolution from bacterium to human, or from infant to man, or from being in Albany to being in Schenectady, or from having had no coffee this morning to having had coffee this morning – all are equally problematic. How can one thing give rise to another in a continuous procedure? Zeno’s Paradoxes of Motion apply exhaustively to all continua.

        The solution is to quantize events, to turn them into discrete entities. Once you get a series of discrete entities, each somewhat different than any of its predecessors, then (for pragmatic and heuristic purposes) you can stitch them together into an extensive causal continuum (one such stitching procedure has been specified by the integral calculus). To avoid Zeno’s Paradoxes, all you need to do is specify a minimum causal extent of actuality, a smallest possible unit of change or of being. This minimum is conveniently suggested by the Planck length.

        Having taken these steps, so that motion does not involve one thing becoming itself some other different sort of thing, then there is no conflict between motion – including evolution of species – and essence.

      • The analogies are not valid, as their content is not analogous.

        It is in the nature of a man to grow from infant to adult, this is not comparable to a bacterium giving rise to a man, which is not in any way in the nature of a bacterium.

        What city one is in is not in any way a part of one’s essence, so this is also not comparable with the transformation from bacterium to man, unless one adheres to the metaphysics I mentioned earlier, in which bacteria and humans are not essentially different.

        The only way for an evolutionist to quantize evolution is on the level of individual creatures, such that each creature is its own species. This denies that there even is such a thing as the human species.

        Not that it’s relevant to evolution, but I don’t think quantizing physical motion on the level of the Planck length is any good. Things don’t actually move on the level of the Planck length, everything tangible and much that isn’t tangible is far to big to move on such a scale. And point particles, the only things for which the Planck length is relevant, don’t move on that scale either, the only sensible way to define their motion is with respect to other objects, and no particle can get within even several orders of magnitude of the Planck length of another particle.

      • The analogies are not valid, as their content is not analogous.

        The examples of change I adduced were not intended as analogous. They were all instances of change of one sort or another. The paradoxes of continuous motion apply to *any* sort of change. Continuous change is inherently paradoxical; it *cannot* therefore happen.

        It is in the nature of a man to grow from infant to adult. This is not comparable to a bacterium giving rise to a man, which is not in any way in the nature of a bacterium.

        What city one is in is not in any way a part of one’s essence, so this is also not comparable with the transformation from bacterium to man …

        Motion from any one category to any other is still motion. The difficulty arises with any such motion. If it is continuous, it can’t happen.

        The only way for an evolutionist to quantize evolution is on the level of individual creatures, such that each creature is its own species. This denies that there even is such a thing as the human species.

        Even if it were true that evolution of species could be quantized only at the level of individual organisms, that would not suffice to make each organism its own species. You could still have groups of organisms that fell into different species.

        Not that it’s relevant to evolution, but I don’t think quantizing physical motion on the level of the Planck length is any good. Things don’t actually move on the level of the Planck length, everything tangible and much that isn’t tangible is far too big to move on such a scale. And point particles, the only things for which the Planck length is relevant, don’t move on that scale either, the only sensible way to define their motion is with respect to other objects, and no particle can get within even several orders of magnitude of the Planck length of another particle.

        Pluto is quite a few Pluto diameters away from Sol, but you can still define its motion in respect to Sol.

        The Planck length is not adduced as a *normal* amount of motion or becoming or being, but as a *minimum.* A thing that moves a hundredth of an inch has moved at least a Planck length!

      • “I don’t think arguing from evolution really benefits our cause. The ideology attached to evolution is one in which reality as it actually is is bad and needs to be replaced. It essentially rejects the connection between is and ought, and so it doesn’t contradict a goal of “make everyone equal”, since it’s essentially nihilist and doesn’t recognize any objective standard of good other than “change”.”

        AR, I think “evolution” is a misnomer that takes Darwin’s theory and looks at it through the lenses of Whiggified history. The reality is that evolution is not constant forward change but adaptation to changing circumstances. The species that adapts correctly to changing circumstances and quickly is the one that survives. At the same time, evolution is based on the mutation of genes and the mutated genes that are beneficial are the ones that

        Darwin’s evolution explains the “is” not the “ought”. Liberals and conservatives (I’m using simple terminology even though those words mean too many things and therefore nothing but you know what I mean when I say “liberal” or “conservative”) do not disagree with the “is”, we disagree on the “Why” and more importantly the “ought”.

        Darwin’s basic view on “What” is similar to our view.

        “If we’re arguing natural law, then we’re arguing for definite ends which things are naturally oriented to. This is directly contrary to evolution, which is about perpetual change (perpetual revolution if you will) directed toward nothing in particular. Evolution is not an essentialist idea, it basically denies the reality of speciation, since according to it the line between me and an ape is not categorically different from the line between me and you. If reduced to its necessary metaphysics, it basically asserts that at best there is one species, living creatures*, and all living creatures are different instantiations of this species.”

        I disagree, Evolution is adaptation to a changing physical environment. You don’t need to believe in anything to see that environments change all the time and the populations within these environments have to adapt to survive. The “change” as you say, is oriented towards a base, foundational notion of existence: survival.

        Speciation even in science can be relative. For instance, why are dogs, jackals, grey wolves, dholes, coyotes and dingoes different species even though they can reproduce and create completely fertile offspring and have the same number of chromosomes (78)?

        But the fact is, while you, me and Kristor have a lot of similar DNA to apes, we have far more genetic similarity to one another.

        I mean, I understand what you are saying but we can not deny the scientific facts laid out in front of us.

      • @Kristor

        My objection isn’t to continuous change. It’s to the principle of Darwinsin evolution.

        You can arbitrarily define species however you want, but my point is, that in evolutionary metaphysics, there is no concrete barrier between one species and another, they’re all just instantiations of “life”.

        @Svar

        If one changes to the point of becoming another type of organism, in order to survive, then one hasn’t really survived. Your post really demonstrates my point, the ideology of evolution is one of rejection of nature as it actually is, in preference for a concept of nature judged better.

        The logical conclusion of your canine conundrum is that they’re different races, rather than different species, properly speaking.

        And evolution isn’t scientific fact. It’s not a proven fact at all, although even if it were it would be a historical fact, not a scientific one.

      • Well, my objection *is* to continuous change. If continuous change is logically impossible – which it is – then all change is discontinuous. In that case, there are concrete barriers between all entities that differ from each other in any respect, and the problem of motion is how to surmount these barriers so as to get different entities in a causal series that are alike enough that we can reasonably treat them as instances of the same basic sort of thing. But apparently this problem is no problem at all to actual entities, who all surmount it as the first condition of their disparate existence.

        If there are concrete barriers between any two entities, then the problem of how to surmount the barrier between species is in principle not much different than the problem of how to surmount the barriers between disparate moments in the life of a single person. If persons can evolve, and give rise to different persons altogether (as parents do to children), then what exactly is the metaphysical barrier that would prevent species from giving rise to different species?

        My basic point is that change from one species to another need not be taken as a reproach to real essentialism. Essentialism can accommodate evolution of disparate sorts of beings.

      • The problem with Darwinian evolution isn’t that it cannot in principle be reconciled with metaphysical essentialism. The problem with it is that it is objectively wrong, has been shown to be so time and time again, and is clung to by most who cling to it because of their metaphysical priors. Darwinian evolution is also a classic case of weaponized nihilism or motte-and-bailey rhetoric. When challenged it means nothing particularly objectionable and is virtually a tautology, but when drawing implications from it it makes all sorts of strong unsupported assertions.

      • To be sure. I was not arguing in favor of Darwinian evolution in particular, but rather in defense of the notion that one species might somehow or other arise from another.

      • @Kristor

        The point I’m making is that there is no concrete barrier between species in Darwinian evolution. In order to make one, you have to be arbitrary, as every individual organism is just a step off in the direction of another type of organism.

        @Zippy

        I’m aware that there are ways of reconciling evolution to reasonable metaphysics. But the metaphysics which most logically go along with it are not reasonable.

      • The point I’m making is that there is no concrete barrier between species in Darwinian evolution. In order to make one, you have to be arbitrary, as every individual organism is just a step off in the direction of another type of organism.

        That individuals differ does not entail that there is no such thing as species.

      • Lamarckian Evolution has been disproven but Darwinian evolution has not. And the best right-wing scientists (and scientists in general) like Gregory Cochran are not Christian Creationist or Cultural Marxist Equalitarian but hard Darwinian.

        AR, you are most definitely a different species from a chimp or gorilla. If you were to mate with an ape (hypothetically of course, ignoring the disgusting bestiality) not only would there not be sterile offspring or non-viable offspring but no offspring period (the morally depraved Soviets tried experiments).

      • Svar:

        Lamarckian Evolution has been disproven but Darwinian evolution has not.

        I don’t think either of those statements is strictly true, especially the latter; although obviously it depends upon the standard of proof.

        Specific testable predictions from the current incarnation of whatever is labeled “Darwinian evolution” at a given point in time have been disproven over, and over, and over again. These falsifications are repeatedly rationalized away and trivialized, because to admit ignorance about just how the world of prokaryotes became the world we see today is metaphysically intolerable to modern materialist scientism.

        The reasons that people believe Darwinian evolution to be true are metaphysical and social, not scientific. Whenever Darwinian evolution has been understood in a way specific enough to be scientifically testable it has been repeatedly proven false. When it is not specific enough to be testable it is simply assumed a priori.

        That is to say, as natural science Darwinian evolution has been falsified repeatedly and comprehensively. As metaphysics it is unfalsifiable, kind of — except in the sense in which, say, David Hume’s atheism has at this time been falsified for David Hume.

      • No one truly believes in Darwinian evolution most especially liberals. They probably are more anti-Darwin than Christian creationists. The only people who advocate actual Darwinianism would be guys like Gregory Cochran who wrote the 10,000 Year Explosion. For the facts laid in front of us, Cochran’s and his ilk’s ideas (if you don’t want to advocate Darwin’s for the stigma) are the best framework for what we know now. Of course, science is not static and it changes when new aspects of the Truth are revealed over time.

      • Just two of the most obvious examples:

        Original Darwinism predicted a continuous fossil record. This was falsified by the actual fossil record with its striking lack of transitional forms. (See e.g. the work of Gould).

        Mayer’s neo-Darwinism predicted that random genetic mutations could produce enough beneficial change to give natural selection something to work with. This also has been repeatedly falsified (see e.g. the work of Margulis).

        And these are just well known obvious examples. Pretty much every time “Darwinian evolution” has asserted something unique to itself that we could actually test, it has turned out to be false. If there were an exception here or there, which there isn’t but I’ll preemptively stipulate, that would just prove the rule: Darwinism as natural science doesn’t mean anything stable at all.

        So if we take the phrase “Darwinian evolution” to refer to what has been consistent in the phrase’s meaning since Darwin, then AR is right: it is pure metaphysics. Stupid and false metaphysics.

      • It wasn’t metaphysics to Darwin who saw it as a theory not a Revolution anymore than Copernicus thought his theory was a Revolution. It has been turned into metaphysics at one point but no major political group today does. I mean, liberals hold on to the very unDarwinistic idea of equality full-stop. Regardless, whether or not Darwin’s right, what I do know is this: equality does not exist in nature and especially not with Man.

    • Bruce: Absolutely right, the post makes no new arguments. Indeed, the title of the post quotes Jacques Mallet du Pan (1749 – 1800), writing of the Terror.

      It is a curious thing that you notice: the Liberal victims of Liberal Terror do not repudiate their Liberalism. On the contrary, they seem to cooperate in their own immolation. It is a kind of madness, I think; literally, a psychopathology, with its own dreadful internal logic, that will not let its adherents go – does not provide them with any way out other than a total rejection of their whole system of thought. That’s a heavy price to pay, and almost no one is willing to pay it, even at the cost of his life.

      People are so weird.

      • @Kristor – Stockholm Syndrome is the name for it – although giving it a name does not explain it.

        I believe that Koestler in Darkness at Noon described the same phenomenon wrt. the show trials under Stalinism (although I haven’t myself read the book) – certainly Orwell (who knew Koestler) included it in 1984 – those chilling final words:

        “He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

      • “Easier always just to go along to get along.”

        That’s the hope, but it is a false hope. Depends on what you’re going along with of course, but when it comes to going along with Muslims or the next Cultural Marxist Revolutionary Vanguard giving in is actually not easy at all.

        “Thus the danger to the West of mass conversion to Islam, just to get the fanatics off our backs.”

        A coward might think that, but adhering to Islam means changing every aspect of our society in a radical way. Even if I wasn’t opposed to Islam, I can see that would take a lot of work in it of itself which makes it much harder than either fighting and winning or fighting and dying. But that’s from a basic utilitarian perspective. When you look at it in terms of honor, no amount of effort or consequence is worth the shameful life of a dishonorable coward. Better to be a gory, mangled corpse with blood and viscera strewn all over some long forgotten battlefield than to be a broken down shell of a man who can never hold his head up high because every moment of your life, every time you go to the Mosque, or hear the call of a muezzin, or see your daughters and wives wear a burka in public, you have to live with the fact that you are nothing but a slug of a man, a coward.

      • Thordaddy has not been even banned at the Orthosphere, let alone censored. A few of Thordaddy’s comments failed to pass the threshold of intelligibility, so they didn’t make it through moderation, that’s all. He has not been banned. So far is he from being censored, that he is still quite free to submit comments both here and elsewhere, as he still does, and for that matter to set up a blog of his own.

        If Thordaddy’s comments were the only thing that was interesting to you here, then it is definitely a waste of your time to stop by.

    • LOL are you serious? TD’s comments were only interesting in the beginning and now they’re all the same old crap. It’s like listening to AC/DC. The first few songs are pretty good until you realize that they’re all basically the same song.

      Plus, it’s like saying, “Man, I really liked going to this particular book store with high-quality books from high-quality authors but I really hate the fact that they changed the toilet paper in the bathroom from quilted to non-quilted so I’m not going back”. If that was the only thing you came for, you never really cared much for the Orthosphere to begin with.

      • It is understandable that you would come to the defence, Svar, Jew hater.
        Are you feeling the heat? Is it like Stockholm syndrome?

        You carry the same mark of the victim as thordaddy and if/when the time comes and the powers that be clamp down on this place, it is the Orthosphereans that will put you on a cross. Finding in you a substitute victim for themselves.
        And with all their knowledge of the process, they know it, it is this reason (non adherence to their own principles) that diminished my interest, not lack of thordaddy content.

        But perhaps my intuition / accusation is wrong and thordaddy really was moderated for incomprehensibility

      • Don’t be silly. Just go read what Orthospherean commenters and authors *actually wrote* to Thordaddy about his incomprehensible prose and monomania. The notion that he was somehow purged for his opinions is just ludicrous.

      • qAsd,

        When I “Jew-hate”, I am laying out logical points, making references to the historical account, science, and common sense. I am also comprehensible throughout the entire thing and I don’t talk about them all the time.

        Plus, I’m coming to the defense of the Orthosphere because I have been a reader since the very beginning of this site and I am friends with a few of the editors and refugees.

        It’s not Stockholm syndrome if you’ve always liked them from the beginning. Then it’s called basic loyalty.

  11. Pingback: Love And Hate, Part 2 - Social Matter

  12. Pingback: We are Cthulu | Zippy Catholic

  13. The secular humanist enemy is still the Church. The post-modern world seeks to redefine morality on issues such as life and sexuality. It should be understood that the family, arguably the greatest conservative institute, is being attacked because it’s such a vital cog. So long as this institution remains, the drop of poison that is individualism cannot transform the world into secular’s image.

Comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s