Two Apposite Apothegms

“Each period of history has some topic of predominant interest, which indicates the prevailing spirit of the age.  Certain words  . . . appear in every page of contemporary annals, and then go out of use altogether . . .”

“Constitutions,” The North American Review (1821)

“The influence of false philosophy . . . is a malaria to the general intellect, a brooding fog over the whole mind of the age . . . diffusing everywhere a pestilential, stupefying power.” 

Review of The Friend, by S. T. Coleridge, in The North American Review (1835)

20 thoughts on “Two Apposite Apothegms

  1. Pingback: Two Apposite Apothegms | Reaction Times

  2. Coleridge was partly a Platonist and would have been aware that a good part of Platonic dialectics concerns the definitions of words. The conversational partners or contenders of Socrates in Plato’s dialogues often use words without, as Socrates reveals, being able to define them, or to use them properly and consistently in a justifiable context.

    I would point to the word “democracy” as a nucleus of the current mental confusion, malfeasance, mendacity, and madness of our political situation. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and other prominent conservative voices (I omit the inverted commas around conservative) talk incessantly about “threats to our democracy.” Democracy, however, is a word that appears nowhere in the Constitution, which document is, in fact, a consciously anti-democratic foundation for a republican government. Or it used to be when people still paid attention to it.

    The “certain words” that voice themselves in every utterance from the mobocracy are all linked to to the anti-concept of “democracy,” the meaning or anti-meaning of which can be gleaned from a review of the riots of last summer and beyond. Or just listen to any segment of babble by the congressional barista.

    • Many ironists at the turn of the nineteenth century noted the adjective “Christian” had become a generic term of approbation. A “Christian dinner” (or “dinner fit for a Christian”) was just a decent, or respectable, or undisgusting dinner. “Democracy” and its variants have likewise become generic terms of approbation. I’ve heard the use of paper plates and plastic forks eulogized as “democratic,” and also a casual indifference to niceties of grammar and decencies of dress. But, as you say, the euphemism “democracy” is not altogether generic. It naturalizes the prejudice that history is a “leveling wind” and all progress consists of breaking down barriers, dismantling structures, and flattening hierarchies. This of course throws sand in people’s eyes, since the arc of history actually bends towards universal slavery.

    • “[A] good part of Platonic dialectics concerns the definitions of words.”

      Often a wild goose chase. As Wittgenstein showed, it is impossible to define the word “game” in such a way as to include everything we call games and to exclude everything we do not. However, we are all familiar with enough things that are games and enough things that are not games to enable us to categorise new activities as either games or not games.

      Often enough, there is no one, essential core in which the meaning of a word is located and which is, therefore, common to all uses of that word.

      • “Wild goose chase” may overstate the semantic problem. My admittedly casual understanding of this is that the logical positivists thought they could turn language into a sort of mathematics, and the later W. told them that it wasn’t going to work. So far, so good. But this was then used as an excuse for the very sophistical wordplay that Plato/Socrates combatted. I personally think this is why so much of today’s discourse is what Orwell called “pure wind.”

  3. Totally unrelated to this post, but I’ve recently started reading site, having been peripherally aware of it for years, but never having gotten into it for whatever reason– mostly due interest in other areas of religion & spirituality than mainstream Christianity, such as tarot, runes, ceremonial high magic, (para/irregular)Freemasonry, European “paganism”, yogic techniques, etc.

    The longer-articles, especially if you have access to free unlimited paper & ink, as I do, are great to print up and read later-on. There’s something about the medium of dead-tree paper that adds a certain aura to a text, that otherwise would’ve be there if the same were read via computer screen. E-books and e-book readers are terrible. IMO, if something isn’t worth having on your bookshelf, its not worth reading period. Then again, I’m pseudo-Boomer tier in terms of tech. Most of the consumer tech advancements of the last 20 years have been unnecessary at best, and detrimental to the well-being of the populace at worst– I say this as someone with a knowledge of and degree in computer science. While blogs like this are great, a diamond in the rough, 90% of the ‘net (e.g., jockeying for likes & fake status on social media) is a waste of time.

    If its any boost to your determination, not only are the leftists (the new NKVD), I’m sure, archiving everything posted here, but folks such as myself are printing up hard copies of the lengthier essays for our own personal collections. No matter what happens (e.g., the site being taken offline in one of the upcoming waves of censorship– hopefully you guys are obscure enough to stay under the radar… I guess that’s a double edged sword), much of the stuff here will live on in various dispersed locations even if the central server that holds all this is deleted. You should look into putting this site up onto the Tor/Onion network, or using blockchain techniques to bypass any future censorship attempts.

    If the world-as-we-know-it ends in some cataclysmic event, such as a nuclear war, Black Death-tier epidemic, catabolic collapse due to peak oil or over-population, etc, I like to imagine future archeologists & historians discovering the treasure trove of various obscure and eccentric books and printed up essays scattered about my house and being like “we owe so much of our understanding of the 21st century right-wing / traditionalist critiques of modernity to this one nameless guy who horded all these manuscripts”, LOL.

    In all seriousness though, having been anti-Christian for most of the last decade, for reasons similar to those of Julius Evola and others of his milieu, the events of the last year, the total inability of the populace to identify the lies foisted upon them, and oppose them (e.g. the neurotically conformist mask-wearing amongst those even who oppose the concept as unnecessary of dehumanizing– which it is, very sad), the failure of non-Christian traditionalist religions to rise to pre-eminence amongst our people (think: Evola & Spengler’s concept of the “second religiosity” / neo-spiritualism / new age nonsense, paganism severed from its original understanding and turned into a series of bankrupt cults devoid of their original vitality, etc), and the various “Satanic” imagery of the neo-liberal globalist elites (e.g., US House Bill 6666, talk of “camps” for the “COVID infected”, vaccination certificates and UBI incorporated into some kind of implantable micro-chip “Mark Of The Beast” to buy & sell seems to be where we’re headed, eek!) has caused my confidence in the vast bulk of humanity to slip even further than it previously was, take more-seriously the predictions made in books such as The Revelation Of John, and idolize the trad Christians, like yourselves, for their being, seemingly, the only large bloc of folks holding steadfast to the ideals of liberty against this sort of evil– there’s really no other word for it. I used to think the globalists, corporations, governments, etc were simply stupid or corrupt, and to a large extent they are, but the events of the last year have shed light upon just how centralized the mechanisms of human-control really are. It’s increasingly difficult to look at all this and come away with any other explanation than there being a literal Devil, or aggregate of demons, sitting behind the scenes, pushing humanity in this direction via the actions of the ruling class.

    As such, despite my reservations, I have begun to seriously consider just being like “screw it”, buying a suit, attending one of the local Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches, and just throwing myself head-first into that, reservations be damned! Blogs such as OrthoSphere, Identity Dixie, RooshV, and OrthoChristian/PravoSlavie have opened me up to the idea of being baptized & confirmed more-so than the Bible, catechumen texts, and most other “selling points” espoused by the mainstream right.

    The regimented lifestyle (e.g., prayer regiments, fasting schedules), aesthetics (e.g., icon veneration), and seriousness in-which many of the traditional Christians conduct themselves (compare to the bulk of “neo-pagans” or “occultists”, most of which, if you listen to them closely, as I do, don’t even believe in the literal existence of their own pantheon of gods!) has been a major selling point, and whitepill, to me.

    The events of the last year have also caused me to double-down on many of my vices, better myself as a person (much more clear-headed now), and also gain a new-found appreciation for many of the Christian virtues / 9 beatitudes I formerly dismissed as “slave morality” (a la Nietzsche). As King Solomon hammers-home in Ecclesiastes (one of the best books of the Bible), ultimately, many of the worldly-pursuits and such, such as collecting books, lifting weights, healthy dieting, getting too into philosophy, history, etc, while certainly commendable on a personal physical level, are essentially meaningless at the end of the day. Despite all the advances of the last half-century, really, “what gaineth a man if he wins the entire world, but loses his own soul?”. Will future generations really care that I’ve been calling out what’s happening now, for roughly a decade, essentially screaming into the void? Very doubtful. Ultimately, salvation of our own souls and attempting to steer those close to us in the right direction is all we can do, the rest is all in the hands of god.

    Anyhow, the main point of all this was mainly to just to congratulate you on the great blog and illustrate that your works have not been in vain. For every 1 person who takes the time to write out a massive post like this, there are 90 lurkers who may very-well read, and be moved by the posts, and come-off with the same takeaways as myself, but never comment.

    Unlike a physical book store, where you can tally the number of people who come in and buy certain works you may be promoting, on the ‘net, you never really know what sort of influence you’re having due to it all being “in the ether”.

    • Thanks for this flattering estimate of our influence, now and in the future. I agree that many forms of esoteric spirituality seem to be make-believe playacting. Anyone who is not terrified by the occult doesn’t really believe in the occult, in my opinion. A substantial portion of the New Testament, our foundational text, exposes and condemns the “hypocrisy” of esoteric mumbo jumbo and the pretentious frauds who mouth it.

      This has not inoculated Christianity against esoteric mumbo jumbo and pretentious frauds, but it does give Christians tools to deal with the witch doctors that invariably set up shop under the Cross. It may also explain Christian resistance to the mumbo jumbo, pious frauds and witch doctors of the New Religion. You should not, however, expect any Christian church you join to be a subversive cell of red-pilled realists. I would suggest that you repress the urge to make it into one, and that you try instead to learn something about the humble spirituality of common folk. You are evidently a sort of Zarathustra yourself, and I don’t expect that will change. You should never allow yourself to be tranquilized, but you should allow yourself to be taught tranquility.

    • Alex, I am glad to hear that our work here has been of some value to you, especially since it seems to have helped incline you to take Christianity seriously. I encourage you to pursue that quarry. He’s for real. But, beware: he’s a lion, not a stag.

      Do, indeed, find a church with a challenging program of initiation for adults, and throw yourself into it. If you find a good one, i think you will be amazed at how well the Church has anticipated all your questions and perplexities. I’d been studying theology for fun for about 40 years when I started reading the Catechism, and I was astonished to see how many loose ends it tied up.

      The Church has been at this for at least 2,000 years, after all. She has seen all the fancy fashionable objections of the present age, many times – it is absurd, and an ignorant presumption, to think that any of them are truly new, that *no bright mind ever thought of them before* – and batted them all down.

      Beware, though: not all churches avail themselves of the spiritual, theological and philosophical riches of the Church. Quite a few – perhaps even the majority – are unwitting salients of modernism, Gnosticism, or the New Age. But, given what you have written about your intellectual history, you shall I think be able to discern any signs of that sort of apostasy. Put it this way: if the doctrine is comfortable to the worldly of this age, it is not Christianity, and you should avoid it as being, at best, a waste of your time.

      If you can join a church without abandoning modern, Gnostic, or New Age beliefs, you have not really joined a church.

      A final word: you’ll not be able to interpret the doctrines of the Church properly under the terms you’ve learned as a modern (as “liberal Christians” try to do). It is a mistake to try. Take the opposite approach: treat the terms and doctrines of the Church as the simple truth, and do your best to enter into that world of traditional orthodox thought on its own terms; as if you were waking up to reality from a long dream. Then, look back and down upon modernity, and apprehend its basic ontological and epistemological – aye, and merely logical – errors. Understand modernity as a heretical deformation of a wider, deeper truth, and not vice versa. It’s the only way you’ll punch through the membrane.

      A yet more final word: reconcile yourself as soon as possible to the notion that – as apparently you have already begun to gather – there are concretely real supernatural persons at work in the created order. These are not just myths – although they are that, to be sure – any more than the Theory of Relativity is a myth. If you find that you can’t credit the notion of angels, e.g., then you’ll be still without the veil, and the secrets of the Holy of Holies will be to you no more than wind. Meaning, you will not yet have grappled with the Real.

      In the words of a pretty good book of Jewish mysticism: This is Real, and You Are Completely Unprepared. Get ready for a roller coaster ride. If you find that you are not terrified about it, you have not yet even bought the ticket.

      God speed. Write us again.

      PS: The spiritual topics interesting to you over the last few years are not at all ruined by an ascension to a Christian perspective. Tarot, runes, ceremonial high magic, Freemasonry, European “paganism,” yoga, etc., can all be accommodated – and, indeed, transcended, and so enlightened, corrected, and perfected – by a sufficiently high initiatic level of traditional Christian orthodoxy. But, not vice versa. E.g., it is impossible to understand Christianity from within the logistical calculus of Tarot, because of the two, the former is the more expansive logistical calculus; so it is the more competent metaphysic. Indeed, the truly catholic doctrine must by definition be competent to comprehend any lesser. That being the case, Tarot – or Kabbalah, paganism, yoga, and so forth (and, indeed, even the Gnostic impulse at the root of Freemasonry, along with many of its arguments (albeit, not the club itself) can all be comprehended by a doctrine truly catholic.

      In short: Gnosticism in all its types can be comprehended by catholic Truth, but not vice versa. That’s what makes Gnosticism in all its types a grievous spiritual error.

      • What a blessing! My family turned on Tucker Carlson’s show this evening, as every weeknight, and I walked in to watch the opening. Disgusted a few minutes in, I took my leave to turn on the computer. This thread is a lovely rejoinder. On this twelfth night on the old calendar, I am grateful to be able to correspond with such fine people — the regular and occasional writers and commentators on this site. I certainly hope Alex’s experience reflects many other fertile fields and vineyards where you have planted seeds. The harvest will come in its time. Regardless, it’s a pleasure to have participated “here” in a small way.

        JS: “You are evidently a sort of Zarathustra yourself, and I don’t expect that will change. You should never allow yourself to be tranquilized, but you should allow yourself to be taught tranquility.”

        This is wise advice. The Church has always been full of misologues — from overly wary geniuses (Tertullian’s heirs) to those upon whom Lady Philosophy never cared to light (innumerable but to the Lord) — and they do their damnedest to chase all mind from the sanctuary. Deal with them charitably. They have good reasons, given their perspective, for their mistrust . . . but they don’t realize that their bigotry slams the door on people unlike themselves (I shudder to think how many souls stupid pietists have sent to hell). But they also provide a counterweight to those who might otherwise get carried away with their own theologoumena (musings about God). The anchors do their job; just do not confuse them for the captain.

        KL: “if the doctrine is comfortable to the worldly of this age, it is not Christianity, and you should avoid it as being, at best, a waste of your time.”

        For all his peculiarities (we all have them!), one of the things I really appreciate about Mr Beale (Vox Day) is his nonchalant dismissal of widely adored idols. A common motif that he repeats, echoing the gospel, is that if the world doesn’t hate you, you’re missing the mark somehow. How Christians have forgotten this rather significant theme is perplexing to me, but it’s good to be reminded of it. Of course, if you’re a rude jackass, you might become the target of the world’s ire, too, but we should never forget that the mob cried, “Crucify him!” And they poisoned Socrates. And Cicero’s head ended up on the Forum’s rostra, a victim of the power in this world. Both many and the few often hate the virtuous, but then they usually remember them well — at a distance.

        I wish you well, Alex, along with all the fellow travelers who stop by for a short rest.

      • Did you ever read Christopher Lasch’s Culture of Narcissism? It was for me one of those books that seemed important, but that I had a hard time digesting into working principles. After all these years, one principle I’ve assimilated is that a narcissist has a very hard time maintaining a boundary between his self and the people around him, so that he must either dominate the group or be dominated by the group. The narcissist is a total egotist when he can get away with it, seeing other people as mere supporting actors in his movie. But when he can’t get away with it, he collapses into absolute conformity and groupthink. This may not be entirely fair to Lasch, but the idea has helped me understand other people and myself. It’s a good principle for eccentrics, dissidents and oddballs to bear in mind, because they feel the strongest social pressure to convert or be converted. The people in my (now long suspended) Bible study group are mostly not at all like me, but Lasch helps me understand why that is O.K. The study group does not exist so that I can make them into me, or so that they can make me into them.

      • Vox Day is one of those turbulent priests – recalling that all the baptized have by their baptism and chrismation been anointed priests of the Order of Melchizedek.

        Which reminds me: Alex, do not wait to be baptized. These are parlous days in the spiritual battle. It were better for you, as safer, if you were cleansed of Original Sin without delay, and enrolled against the Evil One and all his minions, on the side of him who must by definition be the ultimate victor.

        Anyone can baptize you, who intends honestly to baptize. Your baptist need not be himself a Christian. Any water may be used to make the sign of the Cross on your forehead – even spit. Your baptist must say, only: “I baptize thee, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” That suffices.

        Tell the church you join about your baptism. They may want you to formalize your vows of enmity to Satan and fidelity to Christ, and may even want to administer a conditional baptism just to be on the safe side. But, ontologically, the change will have been effected by your first baptism, provided your baptist has used the Trinitarian formula and has intended to baptize you.

  4. This is off-topic, but it’s been 2 weeks since the failed right-wing coup attempt, one day before your leader Trump is kicked to the curb, and I’m really curious how people are feeling about that, given all the talk of holy war around here.

    I’m not much good at prognostication, but it seems to me that the far right shot its wad with that ridiculous yet scary display on Jan 6. While it might empower more of the same kind of small-scale violence, it put normal people, and the great powers of state and capital on alert, and there will be increasing crackdowns on right wing sedition (already happening as Parler etc get deplatformed).

    I don’t know, might be a time for some self-questioning. Anybody who makes an alliance with Trump gets his stink on them; that’s now the entire right half of the US citizenry. The feared alt.right is now just another one of his embarrassingly gaudy failures.

    • Our feelings resemble those of a young man whose parents have sent him away to military school while allowing his delinquent sister to snort coke on the kitchen table. This was after the son once missed curfew by fifteen minutes and had traces of a beer on his breath. We now understand, even more clearly than before, that the left holds the patent on violent protests, hyperbolic language, conspiracy theories, and emotional meltdowns over election results. “Coup” and “sedition” forsooth.

      The fracas at the Capitol building was regrettable, but the grotesque and mendacious backlash against the fracas has done the lasting damage because it failed to widen the legitimacy of the Biden administration. Clemency might have won some MAGA hearts and minds, but the Crackdown has succeeded in cementing the opinion that the establishment has put a Pretender in the White House. I hear a lot of fear on the Right, but absolutely zero contrition.

      I must add that the Orthosphere is not really MAGA country. Retail politics tends to appear in our comment threads, typically when a Leftist shows up and demands an apology for Trump. Well that at least is over.

      Your last paragraph illustrates what I have often written here about our descent from party politics into factional politics. I say this as an observation and not an accusation, since I don’t really know which side started it. Nor do I know how to reverse the descent and restore a generous spirit to American politics. Those old days of slightly crooked bipartisan log-rolling look good in hindsight, but we have entered a New Age of flagrantly corrupt factional head-butting, and there’s no turning back.

      • I haven’t commented on the event because (1) I can recognize enough of herd mooings to know that it’s a sensitive topic for “normies” and (2) I have absolutely no respect for the so-called Overton window or the shifting idols of the tribe of the day. So, while respectable types drone on about the consequences of “political violence,” I simply look at history and see that a good deal of it has always been determined by political violence, and that violence is the usual course of events when people no longer resolve their issues through rational discourse, persuasion, and other appeals to shared kinship/values/experience. Have we strengthened and nourished those nonviolent routes to peace and cooperation over the last 60 years or not? Are we more or less united as a nation than we were in 1960?

        Who of the American founders, besides Quakers, would have condemned the Capitol protest? Certainly not the “left” of the time; Jefferson emphatically noted the republican need for periodic “insurrection.” Indeed, his language is much more striking. On the “right” (well, for Englishmen and for rebels) . . . Hamilton, Washington, Adams? Well, we know why they risked their lives, and the “outrages” of old King George and his happy parliament barely register a spark in a pile of ash compared to the wildfires of today’s “statesmen.” Just a cursory list of American politicians’ action (both Rs and Ds) from A.D. 2020 would be more than enough for the founding stock to answer a call to arms. Not being mindful of that Overton window, I’ve said dozens of times this past year that many of our governors and office holders should be swinging from lamp-posts for what they’ve done. While I’m at it, the Argentine in Peter’s Chair would have found himself at the bottom of the Tiber, wearing some nice Roman concrete shoes, had he dared his nonsense in earlier centuries. Nietzsche correctly observed the Mandarinization of Western men generations ago. How prescient he was! We deserve our comfortable servitude; doubtless that most of us will enjoy it.

        Now, what was attempted by the angry mob was neither a coup nor an insurrection, but rather, in the words of Firefly’s Mal Reynolds, misbehavin’. Given the numbers and the circumstances, there would have been far, far, far more damage and bloodshed had the crowd been “insurrectionists.” No, it was a mostly peaceful protest. That is not to say that it was prudent (about that, I’m agnostic). Such situations often result in harm. Consider most peaceful protests, the world over, immemorial. Regardless, for the time being, Americans remain loyal to their government and the existing system. Leftists have been doing their utmost to undermine that native, long-held, hard-gained, blood-soaked loyalty, but it’s still there. Whether it will be there in a generation is another question. The outlook isn’t promising.

        A related matter . . . when leftists start having their political rape fantasies, the specter of Timothy McVeigh frequently arises from the grave — that “angry, vengeful, white terrorist.” 25 years and a whole lot of “non-white” terrorism later, McVeigh still haunts the leftist imagination. Why does he maintain such a presence there? I believe it is because the left knows that there are hundreds of thousands — perhaps millions — of Americans who are technically/strategically capable of such horror. That they don’t commit such atrocities isn’t from a lack of opportunity or capability but because such a action is utterly vile and repellent to these Americans. Killing the innocent is a sacrilege against God and all their values, and even killing the guilty endangers and destabilizes the regime that we honor and wish to protect. That is why the vast, overwhelming majority of right-wingers condemn, instantly and consistently, the murders of abortionists — people who profit from slaying innocent human life.* It doesn’t get any worse than that, and even these walking monsters are thought fit for the law to protect. The left must know that, which is why they taunt the right so much. If they actually believed the “fascist” rhetoric they spouted, they wouldn’t show their faces in public. They would have relocated to Sweden decades ago. So, it’s either just trolling, intentional humiliation, or, possibly, a fear that they have finally gone too far and triggered the beast (or will do so soon, compulsively, despite their fears).

        We can disagree about if/when that triggering will take place. The wise elders of this site seem to believe that Western men have been entirely domesticated. I can see why. We’re well into “appeal to heaven” territory, and the American right cannot don enough sackcloth and ashes to atone for its embarrassment by hillbillies who subjected their leaders to an ounce of the hellish freight ton they’ve received. Myself, I believe that human nature will prevail over perverse conditioning, and there will indeed be that hell to pay. If angry Americans ever decide they are intent on throwing off the shackles and reclaiming their birthright, there won’t be talking heads on television. They will be hiding, in exile, or, well, unattached to the concerns of the day.

        Civil strife is ugly — the worst kind of war. No one should look forward to it, but I’d be lying if I said that my thymotic element didn’t judge it well deserved and far past due. Americans did not start this attack on their civilization or traditional liberties (though they foolishly and naively have permitted it to fester and spread). If the worst comes to pass, I sure won’t condemn the people when they mobilize for justice. I just hope that whatever Christian sensibilities remain in the populace restrain the historical character of revolutions — where the innocent and weak suffer as much or even more than the guilty. As I’ve stated before, I doubt that such will be true for us in the future. We’ve become a heathen society. Look at how the reaction took shape in largely pious, civilized Spain and Germany. What will it be when it happens in our sociopathic age, where no lust is bridled or tamed? Weimerika doesn’t come close to the truth. May the Lord have mercy on our land and people.

        * Not me. Echoing Lady Ann, I personally wouldn’t kill an abortionist, but I leave that personal, intimate decision to others — it’s between them and God. If you don’t believe in shooting baby-killers, don’t shoot one yourself. That’s my sacred choice in what I do with my own body. The body of the victim, it seems, doesn’t consistently matter anymore.

      • “The preponderance of the mandarins never signified any good, any more than does the advent of democracy, or arbitration instead of war, equal rights for women, the religion of pity, and all the other symptoms of declining life.” Frederich Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals (1887)

      • Who of the American founders, besides Quakers, would have condemned the Capitol protest? Certainly not the “left” of the time; Jefferson emphatically noted the republican need for periodic “insurrection.” Indeed, his language is much more striking.

        Well, this presumes that Jefferson would favor any insurrection whatsoever, no matter its end or its perpetrators. That seems dubious.

        But as to whether or not he’d align himself with the Trumpist mob, it seems to me there is a vast gulf: Jefferson was a very smart man, and his revolution was successful. Trumpists are fools, and they lost.

        Regardless, for the time being, Americans remain loyal to their government and the existing system. Leftists have been doing their utmost to undermine that native, long-held, hard-gained, blood-soaked loyalty, but it’s still there.

        Um, have you been paying attention to the news? It is the right wing who attacked the most basic institutions of American government, while “leftists” are the ones defending it. Rightists stormed the capital with the intent of overturning an election and killing elected leaders who they felt were disloyal to their authoritarian leader.

        Now both their treason and incompetence are fully exposed.

      • The quoted passage suggests that Jefferson was not particular about the occasion of insurrection, but rather believed that periodic insurrections were desirable to keep the spirit of liberty alive in the people and the specter of wholesome dread alive in their rulers. He of course lost this revolutionary ardor when he became President. Since the phrase Jeffersonian democracy denotes political doctrines diametrically opposite to to the modern American state, it is doubtful either party can claim him as a patron. Jefferson would search modern America in vain for his idealized yeoman farmer, but the closest semblance would be the petit bourgeoise who were, for the most part, Trumpists.

  5. a.morphous wrote:

    Um, have you been paying attention to the news? It is the right wing who attacked the most basic institutions of American government, while “leftists” are the ones defending it. Rightists stormed the capital with the intent of overturning an election and killing elected leaders who they felt were disloyal to their authoritarian leader.

    Uh, hu. When you *think* “the most basic institutions of American government” is the U.S. Senate building and its inhabitants. Meanwhile, of course, no one ( No. One.) ever “invaded” the Capitol with the intent to kill anyone. You’re projecting again, sir; you leftist dipshit!


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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.