📜 THREAD: Why the Non-Aggression Principle is Unconstitutional and Un-American

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is often presented as the foundation of liberty. But it’s not.

In fact, it’s both unconstitutional and un-American.

Here’s why—and what a real American philosophy of liberty looks like. 🧵 1. What is the NAP?

The NAP is a principle central to libertarianism, especially Rothbardian and anarcho-capitalist strains.

It claims:

“It is immoral to initiate force or coercion against others. All human interaction should be voluntary.”

Force, in this view, is only morally legitimate in direct response to aggression. This applies not just to individuals, but to governments.

So:
•No taxes
•No regulation
•No moral legislation
•No public authority unless purely defensive
•No military action unless directly retaliatory

To libertarians, this sounds like pure moral clarity.

But it’s not American. And it’s not constitutional.

The impact of Nietzche's Christianity's "slave morality" and Will to Power on Christianity.

The reason the Woke Right call Classic American Liberalism weak, ineffective, inactive, and feckless.

How far does a Nietzschean form of Post-Liberal Christianity pull away from traditional Christianity and why and what scripture backs this?

A Nietzschean form of post-liberal Christianity, which seeks to integrate Nietzsche’s philosophy (emphasizing strength, will to power, anti-egalitarianism, and rejection of "slave morality") with post-liberal Christian critiques of secular liberalism, pulls significantly away from traditional Christianity. This divergence arises because Nietzsche’s core ideas are fundamentally at odds with the theological and ethical foundations of traditional Christianity, as rooted in scripture and historic doctrine. Below, I’ll outline how far this synthesis departs from traditional Christianity, the reasons for this divergence, and the specific scriptures that highlight the incompatibility. How Far Does Nietzschean Post-Liberal Christianity Pull Away?

A Nietzschean post-liberal Christianity would depart from traditional Christianity to a degree that it risks becoming a distinct ideology, retaining only superficial Christian elements while fundamentally reshaping its theology, ethics, and anthropology. The extent of this divergence can be categorized as follows:

Theological Departure: Rejection of Divine Authority
Traditional Christianity: Centers on the sovereignty of God, submission to His will, and salvation through Christ’s redemptive work. God is the source of truth, morality, and meaning.

Nietzschean Post-Liberal Christianity: Nietzsche’s philosophy, particularly his proclamation of the "death of God" (The Gay Science, §125) and rejection of transcendent authority, undermines the theistic core of Christianity. A Nietzschean form might reinterpret God as a symbol of human potential or the will to power, reducing divine transcendence to a human construct.

Distance: This shift is profound, as it replaces theism with a form of existential humanism, rendering the concept of God secondary to human self-assertion. Traditional Christianity’s reliance on divine revelation is incompatible with Nietzsche’s call for humans to create their own values.

Ethical Departure: Rejection of Christian Virtues
Traditional Christianity: Emphasizes virtues like humility, love, forgiveness, and care for the weak, rooted in Christ’s teachings and example.

Nietzschean Post-Liberal Christianity: Nietzsche’s critique of "slave morality" (On the Genealogy of Morality) rejects these virtues as products of resentment and weakness, favoring "master morality" traits like strength, pride, and dominance. A Nietzschean Christianity might reframe Christian ethics to prioritize heroism or power, sidelining meekness and compassion.

Distance: This is a near-total reversal of Christian ethics. While post-liberal Christianity might seek to recover a robust, countercultural faith, adopting Nietzsche’s ethical framework would alienate it from the moral teachings central to traditional Christianity.

Anthropological Departure: Übermensch vs. Imago Dei

Traditional Christianity: Views humanity as created in God’s image (imago Dei, Genesis 1:26–27), with inherent dignity but fallen and in need of redemption through Christ.

Nietzschean Post-Liberal Christianity: Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) celebrates the self-overcoming individual who creates meaning and values, rejecting dependence on divine grace. A Nietzschean Christianity might elevate exceptional individuals as quasi-divine figures, downplaying universal human dignity.

Distance: This shift fundamentally alters the Christian view of human nature, replacing dependence on God with autonomous self-creation, which contradicts traditional anthropology.

Ecclesiological Departure: Elite vs. Universal Church

Traditional Christianity: The Church is a universal body of believers, encompassing all who confess Christ, regardless of status (Galatians 3:28).

Nietzschean Post-Liberal Christianity: Nietzsche’s anti-egalitarianism and emphasis on hierarchy would likely favor an elitist community of the strong, excluding or marginalizing the weak. This could manifest as a church that prioritizes cultural or intellectual superiority over inclusivity.

Distance: This vision departs significantly from the universalist, communal nature of the traditional Church, aligning more with a cult of personality or aristocracy than a covenant community.

Soteriological Departure: Self-Overcoming vs. Salvation

Traditional Christianity: Salvation is a gift of grace through faith in Christ’s atoning sacrifice (Ephesians 2:8–9).

Nietzschean Post-Liberal Christianity: Nietzsche’s rejection of redemptive narratives and emphasis on self-overcoming (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) would likely recast salvation as a human achievement through willpower or creativity, negating the need for divine intervention.

Distance: This is a complete rejection of traditional soteriology, transforming Christianity into a secular philosophy of self-reliance.

Overall Distance: A Nietzschean post-liberal Christianity would be so far removed from traditional Christianity that it would likely cease to be recognizably Christian in theology, ethics, or practice. It might retain Christian symbols or rhetoric (e.g., invoking Christ as a figure of strength) but would function as a Nietzschean ideology cloaked in Christian language, akin to a syncretic or heretical movement.

Dear @DataRepublican

Since you are a Database master I assume that consuming data in a table format may resonate with you.

Here is a table that goes deep under the ideological hood on the differences between Classic American Liberalism and the Woke Left and the Woke Right.
Here is a diagram of the strikingly different intellectual lineages between Classic American Liberalism anchored in Christian Realism and Scottish Realism and the Woke Left and the Woke Right based in Nominalist Idealism/Constructivismcoggle.it/diagram/Zr2IjP…

Constructivist Historicism

Let's cover a bit why "History" is so important to both the Woke Left and the Right. @ConceptualJames Venn diagram of this is a good representation how both sides rely on Historical Revisionism.

It all has to do with how Critical Constructivism views reality and thus History's rather active role in the construction of reality. There are ramifications for believing reality is subjective and socially constructed by Man and Society via a perpetual conflict between competing groups for dominance as to what constitutes as "reality" or existence.

One of those is how History is perceived and utilized. Since reality is subjective and this includes Nature itself, even the real objects we perceive like say a Man and a Woman are also subjective...so to is History.

Imagine for a moment that all history and law books that United States was ever a Constitutional Republic were changed to the United States became say an absolute Monarchy and then one of the Men in Black came and erased every ones memory that America is a Constitutional Republic.

To a postmodern Critical Constructivist, "reality" as we know it has now changed.

Perhaps in this extreme scenario it might hold some truth...

What's really happening here?

Most people will look at this exchange as a "debate" in the modern parlance, but it was far from that or at least far from the facade of one.

But let's explore just why it has the Woke Right up in arms
So as @ConceptualJames has pointed out the Woke Right are using Critical Constructivism as their lens for knowledge. This more often than not includes what constitutes historical knowledge.

youtu.be/czt80V2xjE4?si…

The trick here is to delegitimize current understanding of how we as a society know what we know. To induce Skepticism in what we think we know is really going on in the world.

This includes tearing down our old knowledge producers or expert class and replacing them, preferably with those trained in Critical Constructivism.

The Woke Art of Rhetorical Tactics and Spell Casting

Today @ConceptualJames unearthed one of the final words needed to succinctly encapsulate and define one of the core Rhetorical Tactics of the Woke (Left or Right).

To this end we are going to cover the eight primary Rhetorical Tactics you need to know and understand when engaging the Woke Political Warfare Environment. Affordance (n.) The capacity of political warfare to attract and manipulate individuals into engaging with propaganda and psychological operations, drawing them into a narrative or cause by exploiting emotional, cultural, or ideological vulnerabilities, and leveraging relational dynamics between actors (e.g., movements, leaders) and tools (e.g., slogans, symbols) to influence behavior, shift allegiances, or provoke action without direct coercion.

Affordance States

I'd like to thank @VisibleTrouble in advance as his work on affordances I feel is of vital importance to understand.

What I am going to position here is that what say Plato and later Hegel were working on was an astute observation on how humans actually operate in reality. Not some transcendental woo but the actual reality of humans and this does indeed include the interaction between two "opposite" tensions synthesizing a "third" state.

That is two affordances in tension with one another create a stabilizing state.

Affordances are like invitations to action. Chairs in a doctors waiting room inviting you to sit are examples of this. This can happen at the philosophical level as well. This post I am writing for example is an affordance, an invitation for you to consume my content.

So let's take a physical example and then a philosophical example.

Physical example: There is a stick on the ground, the provides you two actionable affordances, grip and drop.

Affordance 1: Grip
Affordance 2: Drop

"Hold" is the stable state between Grip and Drop

Stable State: Hold

In dialectical terms this state is the "synthesis" of the two affordances Grip and Drop.

Philosophical example: Liberty

Liberty is responsible freedom

Affordance 1: Constraint
Affordance 2: Freedom

Stable State: Responsible Freedom or Liberty

See you can't be totally constraining in what people can or cannot do, nor are people free to indiscriminately do whatever they want whenever they want to. The stable state of tension between constraint and freedom is Liberty.

The position here is that this stable tension between two affordances is exactly how humans operate on just about everything they do. This is intrinsic to our Nature and our survival. Now of course this is far more complex than this. Liberty in of itself has many different stable states that constitute it, and each state has its own affordances, and each state has internal and external states or incentive structures in of themselves.

So it's a complex layer of states and affordances that make up human beliefs and actions. Next we need to wrap our heads around the concepts of affordances and these states. Affordances are not just any kind of invitation they are typically ones that almost unconsciously draw you towards them.

Let's use the doctors waiting room as an example again. Consider being in the waiting room surrounded by chairs. If you resist the invitation to sit you will notice the urge or the pull of the invitation. You have to notice the invitation and will yourself not to sit.

Affordances are quite a powerful force on human nature.

Now, interestingly so are the stability of states that two affordances in tension offer. On average once a stable state has been established most people will be resistant to having the state be destabilized and or moving to a different state.

For example if you stop working out and your new state of being is sitting on your couch binge watching Netflix, you will be resistant towards a new state of going to the gym, and vice versa, if you get used to going to the gym you will be resistant towards sitting on your butt doing nothing.

So needless to say that the draw and tension of affordances and the stickiness of stable states did not go unnoticed by the intellectual class...

Ethnos

We need to spend a little time on this concept as it keeps popping up in particular on the Woke Right and antisemitism and or "Heritage Americans".

However...Ethnos is equally a Woke Left concept as well, see CRT or Post-Colonialism as a prime example of this.

As with all things Woke most terms and concepts have a dual meaning to them, one for the Layman and one for the Initiate. You will be at a disadvantage with them if you do not take this duality (polysemy) into account as they can move between each as serves their purposes.

Let's tackle the layman understanding of Ethnos first. What is Ethnos?

Grok-

Ethnos refers to an ethnic group or a people sharing common cultural, national, or racial characteristics. Here's a detailed breakdown based on various scholarly and linguistic sources:

Etymology and Basic Meaning: The term "ethnos" comes from the Ancient Greek word *ἔθνος* (éthnos), which originally meant "a group of people" or "nation." It can refer to any group of people bound by common descent, culture, language, or historical conditions, distinguishing them from others.

Continental Philosophy and the Woke Right

While dealing with one of Sargon's followers they dropped a term that I hadn't heard in awhile and forgot about called Continental Philosophy.

Here is what Grok says about it:

Grok -

Continental Philosophy is a broad term used to describe a range of philosophical traditions and schools of thought that emerged in continental Europe, particularly in Germany and France, in contrast to the more analytic philosophy that developed in the English-speaking world. Here are some key characteristics and movements associated with Continental Philosophy:

Key Characteristics:

Emphasis on History: Continental philosophers often explore the historical context of philosophical ideas, believing that philosophy develops over time and is influenced by cultural, social, and historical conditions.

Focus on Human Experience: There's a strong emphasis on the lived experience, subjectivity, and the existential conditions of human life.

Critique of Modernity: Many movements within Continental Philosophy critique aspects of modernity, like rationalism, science, and technology, often from perspectives that question Enlightenment ideals.

Methodological Diversity: Unlike the more systematic approach of analytic philosophy, Continental Philosophy often employs less formal methods, including literary styles, narrative, and even poetic expression.

Major Movements:

German Idealism: Including philosophers like Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Schelling, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, this movement emphasized the role of ideas in understanding reality.

Phenomenology: Founded by Edmund Husserl, it focuses on the structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty are notable phenomenologists.

Existentialism: Emphasizing individual existence, freedom, and choice, existentialists like Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus explore themes of despair, authenticity, and the meaning of life.

Critical Theory: Emerging from the Frankfurt School, thinkers like Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and later Jürgen Habermas, critique society and culture by connecting philosophical inquiry with social theory, often with Marxist influences.

Poststructuralism and Deconstruction: Jacques Derrida's deconstruction critiques the notion of fixed meanings in texts, while Michel Foucault examines the relations of power and knowledge. Poststructuralism extends these ideas, questioning traditional notions of structure in various disciplines.

Hermeneutics: Developed by Hans-Georg Gadamer and others, hermeneutics deals with the theory and methodology of interpretation, particularly in texts.

Postmodernism: While not exclusively Continental, many postmodern thinkers like Jean-François Lyotard and Gilles Deleuze have Continental roots, emphasizing skepticism toward grand narratives and embracing plurality and difference.

Continental Philosophy, therefore, isn't a monolithic school but a mosaic of approaches that share a common engagement with the human condition, history, and critique of traditional philosophical assumptions. It has had a profound influence on fields beyond philosophy, including literature, psychology, sociology, and political theory. Ok so yeah, Woke

But then I was curious, since we are dealing with the "Woke Right" or what people believe is on the Right or Conservative side I wondered if there was a "Conservative" splinter of Continental Philosophy.

Sure enough there is...

Grok -

The notion of a "Conservative version of Continental Philosophy" is complex, as conservatism within philosophy can take many forms and isn't strictly aligned with one philosophical tradition or another. However, there are several ways in which conservative thought has intersected with Continental Philosophy:

Historical Conservative Thinkers:

Edmund Burke: While not strictly a Continental philosopher, Burke's influence on conservative thought is significant. His emphasis on tradition, organic development of society, and skepticism toward radical change resonates with some aspects of Continental Philosophy's critique of Enlightenment rationalism. However, his political philosophy is more often associated with British empiricism than with Continental movements.

Joseph de Maistre: A reactionary critic of the French Revolution, de Maistre's thought aligns with some conservative elements of Continental Philosophy, particularly in his critique of Enlightenment ideals and his defense of traditional authority.

Hegelian Conservatism: G.W.F. Hegel, while foundational to many aspects of Continental Philosophy, has been interpreted in conservative ways, particularly through his later followers who defended state structures and the status quo.

Specific Movements and Philosophers:

The Conservative Revolution: In the Weimar Republic, a movement known as the "Conservative Revolution" included philosophers like Oswald Spengler and Carl Schmitt, who combined conservative nationalism with critiques of liberal democracy, which can be seen as a form of Continental political philosophy.

Heidegger's Influence: Martin Heidegger, although his later work moved towards a critique of technology and modernity, has been associated with conservative thought due to his engagement with themes of rootedness, being, and criticism of the modern world's technologization. His brief association with Nazism complicates his reception in this context.
Phenomenology and Hermeneutics: While not inherently conservative, these branches of Continental Philosophy emphasize subjectivity, tradition, and the lived experience, which can align with conservative values of preserving cultural and historical identity. Figures like Hans-Georg Gadamer, with his concept of "fusion of horizons," can be seen as conservative in their respect for tradition in interpretation.

Contemporary Considerations:

Critique of Modernity: Many Continental philosophers critique modernity, which can be interpreted in conservative ways. Philosophers like Jean Baudrillard or Paul Virilio, who critique aspects of modern technology and globalization, might resonate with conservative critiques of contemporary society.

The Postmodern Right: Recent trends in some continental thought have seen a re-emergence of conservative or even reactionary ideas under the guise of postmodern critiques of liberalism and globalism. This includes various strands of thought that critique Enlightenment values from a conservative perspective.

The intersection of conservatism with Continental Philosophy often involves a critique of universalism, rationalism, and modernism, advocating for a return to or preservation of particular cultural, national, or historical identities. However, these intersections are often nuanced, with philosophers like Nietzsche or even early Heidegger being claimed by both conservative and radical political thinkers, illustrating the complex relationship between political ideology and philosophical inquiry.

In summary, while there isn't a single, unified "Conservative version of Continental Philosophy," various conservative ideas have found expression within or through Continental philosophical traditions, often through critique of modernism, a focus on tradition, and skepticism towards universalist Enlightenment values.

Dear Catholics,

I now think I have a decent grip on part of the messaging problem within the Catholic/Integralist/Anti-Communist milieu.

Problem 1: The Pope

It goes without saying that most conservative Catholics are pretty aware that the current Pope is a problem, and that there are concerted efforts to separate the Pope from The Church.

Look I get it, I don't know how successful this will be for Catholics...I hope you can make the distinctions apparent, though I don't know what that means in the broader sense of the Church.

Ultimately all of you conservative Catholics know you have a Church Leadership issue at the highest levels, if not some local...

I'd like to point out that you're not alone in this blurring of People and Ideals, indeed the Ideological Architecture of Leftism (Dialectical Pantheism) is specifically designed to use this conflation.

It happens all the time.

Feminism and Women are "the same"

White People and White Supremacy are "the same"

Catholics and Marxists Pope's are "the same" (sigh)

Yeah it's probably not fun for you guys having to combat this, yet combat this you must.

This in turn creates an unfair condition for you on the other side of this when you are obviously conservatives and the Pope is thrown in your face...

Normie Catholic: "Yes! Yes! I get it the Popes a problem but he's not The Church!" you say

I've been a bit guilty of this, though I will be more careful in its use going forward.

If I find you to be an operative for Heideggerian "Catholics" I will more than likely still draw out the Pope card on occasion.

As a conservative Catholic you need to understand something about the Pope that you may not have considered before...he's not working alone...and his "opposition" is helping the very same Oligarchs attempting to nullify the West.

The Right hand of the Left Problem 2: Integralism; Schmitt and Heidegger

On the other side of the Pope lies the more muddled problem for conservative Catholics and that is the intellectual use of Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger as the reference or guidance on how conservatives and Christians should "appropriately" wield "Power".

Now I've been over this a few times before but understand that the use of Schmitt and Heidegger leads to the very same ends as the Pope is leading Catholic Progressives.

This is because Schmitt and Heidegger are esoteric Dialectical Pantheists. While the means differ the ends are the same.

Man becoming God

New Followers: The Tucker Carlson Problem, The ascendance of the Far or Post-Liberal "Right"

So now has come the time to discuss the issue of what is known as the "Far Right" or really what is known as the Post-Liberal Right. Indeed at this time you may even hear it labeled as the "Woke Right".

This is a multi layered issue, but it does tie into all of the previous posts I have made about how Leftism is architected.

Why?

Because the Post-Liberal Right IS Leftism...or rather the Right hand of the Left. But in order to understand this we'll have to break it down for you.

Understand that if you are a conservative that this will most likely be a rather disconcerting thread, but its necessary as we'll soon see. Discernment is sorely needed. What is Post-Liberalism?

- Grok

Post-Liberalism represents a critical departure from traditional liberal ideologies that have dominated Western political thought since the Enlightenment. Here's an overview based on contemporary discussions and analyses:

Philosophical Shift: Post-Liberalism critiques liberalism's emphasis on individual rights, free markets, and limited government, suggesting that these have led to societal fragmentation, economic inequality, and a loss of communal values. This movement argues for a re-evaluation of societal structures to prioritize community, tradition, and a common good over individual freedoms.

Ideological Spectrum: Although post-Liberalism spans across political left, right, and center, its core unites in skepticism towards the liberal framework. On the right, it might manifest as a push for more traditional values, national identity, and economic protectionism, while on the left, it could involve critiques of capitalism's impact on social fabric, advocating for more state intervention to ensure equality and community welfare.

Critique of Liberal Democracy: Post-Liberals often argue that liberal democracy, with its focus on rights over responsibilities, has hollowed out the sense of shared destiny among citizens. They advocate for governance that actively promotes a vision of the good life, which might include stronger cultural or national identity, traditional family structures, or localism over globalism.

Economic Nationalism and Localism: There's a common thread advocating for economic policies that protect local industries, workers, and traditions against global market forces, which they see as detrimental to national cohesion and local economies.

Cultural and Moral Revival: Post-Liberalism seeks to restore what its proponents view as lost virtues or societal structures. This includes a return to or emphasis on religious values, traditional family roles, and community over individualistic pursuits, aiming to foster a society where personal fulfillment is achieved through communal participation and adherence to shared norms.

The Role of the State: Unlike classical liberalism's minimal state intervention, post-Liberals might argue for a state that guides society towards these communal values, potentially through policies that favor family formation, local business, or cultural preservation.

Feminist and Social Critiques: Some post-Liberal feminists critique the sexual revolution and liberal feminism for what they perceive as detrimental effects on women's roles and societal structures, pushing for a return to or reevaluation of traditional gender roles and norms.

This definition captures post-Liberalism's essence as a reaction against perceived failures of liberalism, aiming for a societal structure where community, tradition, and a state-guided common good replace or balance the liberal focus on individual rights and market freedom. However, interpretations can widely vary, reflecting the diverse political and philosophical currents within this emerging paradigm.

New Followers

The Identity Politics of Leftism: Völkisch Cults

The two most recent threads cover both the Duality of Leftism and its Intellectual Architects.

Today we're going to cover exactly how the Architecture of Leftism is specifically designed to sort people into oppositional and polarizing Identity Groups.

Like all things Leftism this did not spring out of nowhere, but has been purposefully constructed system that is all a part of the Lefts design for Man becoming God.

https://x.com/ClassicLibera12/status/1838368936028504560

The concept of Identity Groups or Volk

To begin lets define Volk, remember that German Idealism and French Romanticism are the source of all that is Leftism hence the use of Volk...or Folk:

From Grok-

"Volk" is a German word that translates to "people" or "nation" in English. It can be used in various contexts but often refers to a collective group of people with shared cultural, ethnic, or national identity. Here are a few ways in which "Volk" might be used:

- Ethnic or Cultural Group: It might refer to a specific ethnic group or the general populace of a region or nation, emphasizing a sense of community or common heritage.

- National Identity: In the context of nationalism, "Volk" can be used to describe the national community or the people as a political entity, often with implications of shared destiny or history.

- Everyday Language: In modern, everyday German, "Volk" can simply mean "the people" in a broad, non-political sense, similar to how "people" or "folk" might be used in English.

The term's connotation can vary widely depending on its usage and historical context, ranging from benign to deeply ideological.

Leftist Dualism

In order to understand Leftism it is critical you understand Leftist Dualism!

It is highly likely you have encountered Leftist Dualism but it is equally likely you are unawares that there are two different but related forms of Leftist Dualism.

Leftist Dualism Version 1. - Words and Terms

This form of Leftist Dualism you are perhaps most familiar with and it revolves around dual meanings of well known words, terms and concepts.

There is a fancy term for this called:

Equivocating Polysemy: refers to a rhetorical or logical strategy where a term or phrase with multiple meanings (polysemy) is used ambiguously or equivocally to create confusion, mislead, or manipulate an argument. In this context, the speaker or writer deliberately leverages the different meanings of a word to shift between interpretations without clarifying which meaning is intended at any given point. This can result in logical fallacies, where the conclusion drawn relies on the ambiguity rather than a clear, consistent argument.

Don't worry I won't use that term much (for now). The most common form of this you've no doubt run into is

Diversity and Inclusion

Normal Definition
Diversity - having a range or group of people with differing view points and experiences

Woke Leftist Definition
Diversity - people with a "diverse" (Woke Marxist) world view in contrast to American norms

Normal Definition
Inclusive - welcoming all differing view points and perspectives

Woke Leftist Definition
Inclusive - welcoming only view points (Woke Marxist) that differ from American norms

The Left apply this duality of terminology to everything they seek to delegitimize or control:

"Whiteness", "Racism", "Normalcy"

..."What is a Woman"

Note, Fascists being a sibling of Communism also do this with the term "struggle"

Even Progressivism does this with "Democracy" and now "Joy"

You get the idea

Anytime you are exposed to Leftism you should be alert to the use of this kind of duality around words, terms and concepts. Do not be deceived!

Use discernment! Leftist Dualism Version 2. - Leftist Smuggling Operation (the Exoteric and Esoteric)

This one is far more difficult to sus out for Normies be it Conservative or Progressive and is perhaps the primary vector to understanding how Leftism parasitically.

If you do not understand or accept this next part you will not only not understand Leftism but be susceptible to it.

Leftism as stated is about Duality. What it does is immutably pair things together, this includes concepts. When I say immutable I mean it. The pairing cannot be decoupled, indeed Left entice people to make an attempt on purpose.

You know the old adage "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water"? In this case it is a Leftist trap.

Imagine a child's play set where the toy baby is in a tub filled with water but the water is plastic fake water and infused with baby. The tub, the baby and the water are all ONE piece. The plastic water is Marxist water. That's Leftism. If you throw the "water" out, so too must you throw the baby with it...together!

First one more set of high faulting definitions (promise it won't hurt).

Exoteric: refers to things that are intended for or understood by the general public, as opposed to a limited, specialized audience.

Esoteric: refers to knowledge or practices that are obscure, understood by a small number of people with specialized knowledge, or deliberately kept secret.

Now here is where it gets tricky.

Leftism approaches this from a very troublesome angle.

Leftism uses the following Exoteric methods: rationalism, reason, empiricism, scientism, historicism

In order to SMUGGLE in the Esoteric of Leftism, Collectivism, Marxism, Progressivism, Wokeism...to smuggle in...

The State as the (Divine) "Will of the People"

Man becoming God

Hello New Followers,

If you are new here (in particular from the Open Communications post) I want to start by saying welcome.

I am a Classic Liberal and this account is dedicated to both combating Tyranny by helping people understand the difference in fundamental beliefs between Classic American Liberalism and Leftism.

Let's do this in small steps.

The first thing to understand is that the primary difference between Classic Liberalism and Leftism is about existence itself. This may sound crazy to you but bear with me it'll make more sense as we go along.

Let's start with

Classic American Liberalism

- believes...
- Man is NOT God

- Existence is objective and created independently of Man

- Man is a flawed and limited being, therefore

- No Man has authority divine or otherwise over his fellow Man

- Man is endowed with inalienable rights given to him by God or Natures God

- Limited Man, Limited Government

vs

Leftism,
- believes...

- Existence itself is subjective

- ...and constructed by the collective consciousness of society

- Man is transcendent and can actualize a perfected Man and Society (Utopia)

- The State is the Divine "Will of the People"

- Man is becoming God

- Unlimited Man, Unlimited Government

We are going to explore Leftism in more detail for Normie Conservatives, however in the meantime it is highly recommended check out this exceptional essay on Classic Liberalism by @ConceptualJames

newdiscourses.com/2023/11/basis-… In video format:

Post-Liberals are Boromir::Saruman

I want to cover why it is I do not feel any obligation to "engage" or "listen" to Post-Liberal punditry or intellectuals using the analogy of Boromir, Saruman, Sauron and the One Ring.

Let's tackle Boromir first Boromir on his own merits is a good, strong, wise and noble yet prideful Man. If I met him without the influence of the One Ring no doubt I would find his wisdom and strength insightful and useful, though the influence of Denathor his father may bring us to some disagreement.

I asked ChatGPT on a fresh session simply the following:

Scenario: I have discovered that Man is transcendentally unlimited, except that in order to actualize this transcendence all of society must either also believe in the idea, participate in the idea or capitulate to the idea.

What form of governance system would be needed to see this end?

Remember it is vital that all three conditions be met for this governance system.

Here is what it said: 1. Belief in the Idea:

Postmodern Lord of the Rings (The Rings of Power)

There is currently an intentionally contrived Dialectical Mass Line around the Rings of Power as is typical for a postmodern treatment of our classic Western stories and mythologies.

If you are a fan of the Lord of the Rings and Tolkien in general the first thing you should understand that Tolkien created...as in an actual Creation Story of Existence.

It has all Metaphysical trappings, Ontology (existence), Teleology (purpose), Epistemology (knowledge), Axiology (values), and Theology (religion).

You can tell he did it with much passion and love and he pulled much from the myths of various religions be it pagan, gnostic and Christian.

But roughly speaking the metaphysics of Middle Earth overlap with Christianity.

This is no accident All the distinctions of Good and Evil, Elves and Men, Sauron and the Free Peoples, The Children of Ilúvatar and Ilúvatar himself are the foundation for all the Epic Tales of Valor and Woe that Middle Earth are built upon.

The postmodern writers of the Rings of Power have a divine imperative to topple with ruthlessness all that which Tolkien has built...

They must erode and distort and subvert and twist all Tolkien built, to compromise the integrity of Good and Evil, the very soul of Tolkien's grand narrative.

Tolkien's stories are universal, they speak to those of us who are bound to objective beauty and truth, Fellowship and Love.

American Progressivism Part 2.3: The Dialectic

Now that we have covered the core beliefs of Hegelian Progressivism we need to talk about functionally how Progressivism goes about...well Progressing.

One of the primary means of doing this is via a framework called The Dialectic.

Let's begin by defining the Dialectic:

Dialectic: The interplay of opposing forces or ideas, leading to some form of resolution or new understanding. It is a dynamic process that emphasizes change, contradiction, and the synthesis of ideas.

To summarize The Dialectic takes a thesis places it into conflict with its antithesis in order to "synthesize" a new understanding or solution.

Great so, if you're a Normie Progressive and you are reading this, it kind of sounds like something akin to compromise right? So what's the big deal?

Well as we'll see its a bit more complex than just compromise, and while it might seem rather benign for small scale problem solving, it becomes quite a problem at societal scale and especially when attached to the Progressive stack. Having covered some of the concepts in the previous thread it will be easier for you to follow along with the terminology.

Here I am providing link to another thread that covers the How's of the Dialectic in I hope a consumable format.

I highly encourage you to read through it.

This thread will deal a bit more with the WHY of the Dialectic.

Note: I use the term "sociognostic" at the beginning, don't be confused, for now just consider it a euphemism for Hegelian Progressivism

https://x.com/ClassicLibera12/status/1818008863850832208

American Progressivism 2.2: Hegel and the Progressive Stack.

Now comes the time where we need to talk about what Progressivism believes, how and why it is constructed the way it is and how it operates.

In order to do so it is critical to understand at some level Hegel and how he constructs a framework of belief for "Progress".

If you cannot or do not understand Hegel to some degree then you will not fully understand Progressive Leftism...even if you participate in it! Before I continue I'd like to redirect people the Interlude (Exoteric, Esoteric) as you're probably going to need it based on what's coming next...

https://x.com/ClassicLibera12/status/1826491154541486315

Part 2.1: American Progressivism; Intellectual Figures

Just like American Liberalism has its own lineage of intellectual figures such as Jefferson, Madison and James Wilson who were in turn influenced by John Locke and the Scottish Realists so to does American Progressivism. While this in no way comprehensive to the array of thinkers that influence and drive modern Progressivism and in particular within the Democratic Party all Progressive thought eventually ends up at the same places...and it is not the Founders, John Locke or the Scottish Realists.

Interlude (Exoteric, Esoteric)

Before moving on to Part 2 we need to cover an important practice often used by the Progressive Left. Now I'm going to be fully transparent here and admit that if you are a Normie Progressive and you cannot buy what I'm about to cover here then all of my subsequent posts may not resonate as much. I hope however to provide at least a compelling enough explanation of this particular practice of the Left that you will at least consider it to some degree.

The practice in question is the use of the exoteric as a veneer or cover for the esoteric.

Lets break this down