Liberty after Liberalism: A Post-Constitutionalist View of Freedom

A certain rear-garde line has it that the new Reactionaries are a lot of totalitarian freedom-hating disciples of Hegel and Mussolini. I contend, against this sophomoric libel, that in reality the new Reaction is in a privileged position to enshrine personal liberty on rock-solid grounds and succeed where the now-discredited Constitutionalist tendency on the old Right failed. The trick, I argue, is to have the right idea of what “liberty” means. We will then be in a position to talk about what must be done to save the many, many virtues of the Anglo-American tradition of individual freedom from its self-defeating vices. Read all about it at Thermidor Magazine.


Liberalism: The God with no Name

Behind all the Liberal hoo-haw celebrating individual autonomy, choice, moral relativism, and atheism, there stands a deontology (and a rigorous one at that) and a corresponding theology. This theology dares not speak its name, nor the name of the God it worships, but it can clearly be seen at work in the discourses and practices of Liberalism if you look at them closely enough. And it turns out, under the microscope, that Liberalism isn’t quite as Liberal as it likes to make itself out to be. This is the subject I wrote about in my latest article for Thermidor Magazine. Check it out…

Materialism, Truth, and Power

Every rational and educated person is supposed to know that that there exists no such thing as God or the soul, because there is no hard scientific proof of their existence, and that everything that does exist reduces to so much physical matter in motion. But this scientifically untestable and unverifiable ontology, which reduces all being to the laws of physics, itself reduces to an underlying substrate of politics. Find out how in my latest article at the excellent Thermidor Magazine.

Some Desultory Remarks on the Concept of “Universal Person”

Critically interrogating anti-identitarian discourses of both the Left and Right, William Scott finds that these discourses vehemently attack affirmations of White identity in the (covert) name of yet another identity, one that, rather curiously, defines itself as an anti-identity, an absence of identity- or more precisely, an absence of positively-definable identity as conceived in traditional, particularistic terms:

This Identity is positive in a way, but it is posited as a negation. It is the rejection of other identities, especially biological identity: race. We should say that the rejection of Ethnic Identity is the foundation of this Ideological Identity. More accurately, Universal Person is the necessary citizen of Universal Democracy. In this way ethnic or competing ideological identities are rejected all at once in order to establish the ideal democratic citizen: the atomized individual with no identity apart from self-interested participation in democratic society.

Read more

Leftism, The Religion that Failed: A Study in Insecure Power and Social Disorganization

Some time during the past ten years, the tendencies to religious enthusiasm that had always been present in the Left all of a sudden broke out as though into a fever. “Political correctness”, a phenomenon hitherto more or less endemic to the University, where it was the preoccupation of a tiny elite of deconstructionist literary critics and the like, became a veritable pandemic of holiness. Out of nowhere, seemingly every half-literate middlebrow with an Internet connection and a social-media account was virtuously and authoritatively exhorting others against the evils of racism, bullying, “homophobia”, and something they always pronounced like “mahsawdgenny”. It wasn’t always clear just what exactly these epithets were supposed to mean, but their incantation soon came to define middle-class respectability in much the same way public religious observance once did; mutatis mutandis, anybody expressing incorrect thoughts and opinions was liable to be stigmatized as though an apostate or heretic from an established public religion.  Read more

Anarcho-Tyranny in Oakland

The legitimacy of public authority in the United States, more than perhaps anywhere in the West, is explicitly predicated on the juridico-political doctrine of social contract most famously exposited by Hobbes, Locke, Blackstone, and other luminaries of the Liberal canon.  According to this theory, by Nature human beings desire the preservation of their own lives above all other things, and can legitimately do whatever it takes to secure their Natural right to self-preservation. In order to secure the preservation of their lives and property against the constant imminent danger each individual life would be exposed to under anarchy, individuals collectively renounce the right to use force on their own behalf, together with the absolute freedom and independence they enjoyed in the speculative pre-social “state of Nature”, in order to found the State. Read more

In Defense of Sheeple

One of the most elementary representations of Sovereignty, both earthly and Divine, is the pastoral image of shepherd and flock. The pastoral metaphor of the relationship between Sovereign and subject follows congenially and spontaneously from the human experience of husbandry over animals that, like Man, are highly social, and thus naturally compatible with Man and moreover amenable to being governed by Man to his advantage. This activity, in turn, furnishes a ready-made metaphoric representation of human society ordered under authority- one that comes up repeatedly in the Ancient world, above all in the Bible, where time and time again the Sovereignty of God over His people is styled in terms of a pastor gathering and tending (and sometimes, abandoning and scattering) his flock. Read more

Might against Right: False Modernist Conceptions of Power and Sovereignty as pure “Domination”

An exchange I once had with a gentleman of the Left concluded in his derision of my social thought as a “general celebration of domination”. This same individual was a self-described revolutionary Marxist whose own doctrine explicitly holds that the final liberation of Man from “domination” at the hands of his fellows will have to be preceded by an all-out class war to be followed by a dictatorship that, to start, will by unvarnished force dispossess the losers of that war of everything they have- but I’ll leave that aside for now. Probably every man of the Right has had to endure some variation of this derision, which has been a standing rhetorical slur on all thought deemed insufficiently Left since at least the age of Enlightenment. Read more