Category Archives: Philosophy

The Science of Evil

Michael Rectenwald's Review of "Political Ponerology"

“Political Ponerology” is the title of a book on the science of evil, written by Polish author Andrew M. Łobaczewski and first published in 1984 (!). US academic Michael Rectenwald has read it and written a review on mises.org. He starts by saying:

This strange and provocative book argues that totalitarianism is the result of the extension of psychopathology from a group of psychopaths to the entire body politic, including its political and economic systems. 

He goes on to say:

Łobaczewski made the bold claim that he’d uncovered “the general laws of the origin of evil.” If true, the book was on par with Newton’s Principia in the physical sciences, while being of greater practical importance. And he approached this domain from the disciplinary perspective of psychology. Such an “individualist” methodology had been dismissed as mere “psychologism” in my own and many other fields of the humanities and social sciences. Łobaczewski’s insistence to focus on individual psychological disorders to understand the unfolding of “macrosocial evil” seemed mistaken to me initially, but this approach accords well with Joseph Schumpeter’s methodological individualism, which became a hallmark of the Austrian school. My assumption had always been that one needed to study political ideology and economics and that political ideology and economic theory explained nearly everything one needed to know about how and why totalitarian evil comes about.

Continue reading →

The True Causes of the Ukraine-Russia Conflict

A very good succinct presentation

By Vasko Kohlmayer.

Included are videos with Ukraine- and Russia-experts John J. Mearsheimer, who is a Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Jim Rickards, who is, according to the author of the article, “one of the most astute experts on geopolitics today. He is a lawyer, best-selling author and investor. He is an advisor on capital markets to the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.”

The Ukraine War: Arguments for Non-Intervention

While humanitarian aid is called for, intervening to support one side against another would be wrong

Alan Bickley has written about the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine from a UK perspective. Here are some quotes:

A nation is a partnership across generations. Where the use or possible use of armed force is concerned, those now alive in a nation, and particularly those governing the nation, have no business acting as they feel personally right. They are not the whole nation. They are not the agents of the nation. They are its trustees. Their duty is to act in a manner that does not endanger the nation now, or harm the interests of the following generations. We can regret that our ancestors did not consult our interests when they acted as they did in 1914 and 1939. This does not lessen our obligation to avoid acts or courses of action that will bring similar harm to our descendants. Risking the hostility of a great power because it is doing things we dislike inside its own sphere of influence is no part of any legitimate agenda for those who sit above us as our trustees.

On the matter, though, of democracy. The Ukraine strikes me as just another post-Soviet mafia state. In February this year, its President banned three opposition television stations. Last May, he had one of the opposition leaders put under house arrest. In 2016, The Huffington Post described the country as “a known hub for human trafficking,” and reported how its orphanages were doubling as brothels. I could supply a mass of further detail. I think this will do, however, to raise doubts of its propriety in the present case, even if we accept the generality of the claim that we have some duty to defend those countries that are democracies against countries that are not.

Ukraine and the Global American Empire

International "System" versus National "Politics"

Blogger eugyppius has posted a very insightful analysis of the unfolding drama and tragedy in Ukraine.

He quotes Rolf Peter Sieferle from his book “Finis Germania”.

Rolf Peter Sieferle, one of my favourite thinkers, wrote about the fundamental conflict, between the globalists on one hand, and the unaligned people like me and unaligned countries like Russia, in more abstract terms. For him, the clash is between “politics” and “system”:

Politics belongs to an older stratum of existence, ordered in terms of the state and of history, crystallised in statesmen, leaders and ideologues. It has programmes, values and goals. What is required are virtues and commitments directed towards a super-ordinate whole. The last resort of politics is war – the willingness of the individual to sacrifice himself for a higher cause, for his community.

System characterises newly emerging orders of higher complexity, which successively displace politics. Systems organise themselves without focus, without values, goals or programmes. Their only maxim is freedom and emancipation for individuals. Virtue and sacrifice are anachronisms. Wars are nothing but catastrophic conflicts that must be prevented through skilful management. Order is created by objective, autonomous constraints, not by a normative orientation. The structures of systems are as inescapable for individuals as a magnetic field is for iron filings. They do not “know” anything about it, but they conform to their predefined paths. The most important processes are not controlled and can hardly be grasped theoretically.

System has largely prevailed in advanced “western” countries. Yet the rest of the world in many ways still thinks politically. This strikes the West as anachronistic fundamentalism. …

Greta Thunberg vs Boyan Slat (who?)

Wrong thesis of media star vs right thesis of a nobody

See here.

Greta is now 19, Boyan is 27.

At age 16, Boyan invented a “passive plastic catchment system, using circulating ocean currents to net plastic waste”. On Boyan’s Wikipedia page, it says: “As of mid 2020, Interceptors have been deployed in Indonesia and Malaysia, and are prepared to be deployed in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic.”

“Do I Believe in God, COVID Totalitarianism & the Climate”

Dave Rubin speaks with Jordan Peterson about these issues

For simplicity’s sake, I will today just quote from the text below the video, because it covers all the essentials. It’s probably the best exposition of Jordan Peterson’s views we will get in just one hour, and I’ve seen a lot of videos with and about him. It was posted on YouTube on 14th November 2021.

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Dr. Jordan Peterson, author of 12 Rules for Life and Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life, about what is actually informing COVID restrictions, the real choice that faces the clean energy COP26 crowd, and his response when he is asked about the existence of God.

First, Jordan discusses why we chose medical tyranny and a totalitarian state as a response to the COVID epidemic. He shares how the politics of fear, more than science, has been informing COVID policy in Canada in the U.S. Jordan also tries to understand how the left, who usually hates big corporations, has handed over it’s trust to big pharma.

Next, Jordan discusses the COP26 summit and the horrible position liberals and environmentalists have put themselves in by pushing for more expensive renewable energy while claiming to care for the poor. He explains why their more expensive energy plans will cause electricity prices to skyrocket, hurting those most vulnerable. He suggests we follow China’s lead and invest in nuclear power to create as much cheap energy as possible which can mitigate the effects of climate change without sacrificing the poor. He explains the problems of sustainable development and why you should dismiss anyone who advocates for Net Zero.

Finally, Jordan discusses what religion and spirituality mean to him. He shares the answer he gives when asked “does god exist?” He also explains why people like Sam Harris may not be as atheist as they may think they are. He also explains why science fails as a religion and what religious thoughts really are.

I will just add that Peterson announces that he is going to the UK soon, to speak in Cambridge and Oxford, with, among others, Richard Dawkins. That’s something to look forward to.

Repealing the century of collectivism, mass destruction and genocide

Our hope resides in a resurrected God

“We shall repeal the 20th century.” These were words spoken by American economist Murray N. Rothbard (1926 – 1995) near the end of an article he wrote in 1992. Another American economist, Gary North (b. 1942), who is a historian and theologian as well, used these words near the end of a lecture he gave in 2010.

Rothbard made clear why he wants to repeal it, when he asked, ironically:

“Who would want to repeal the 20th century, the century of horror, the century of collectivism, the century of mass destruction and genocide, who would want to repeal that! Well, we propose to do just that.”

With “we” he meant what he hoped would be a resurrected movement which in America is called the Old Right, a movement that was libertarian in its core, supported decentralised structures, laissez-faire economics and minimal interference of the government into private lives. This movement was effectively killed off around the year 1900 and replaced by interventionist, imperialist, big-government and big-business supporting politics.

Similar things had happened, or were happening, in Europe. Nationalism was the name of the game, and that sentiment lead to centralised governments continually increasing their interventions into the economy to suit their lust for power. Imperialism was the natural outgrowth of this development. This in turn lead to the original catastrophe of our time, World War One.

Considering that we are by now one fifth into the next century, it is clear that we have been unable to repeal the 20th century. For, as an idea, or phenomenon, the 20th century, in all its awfulness, is still firmly with us. So, how can we go about “repealing” it?

Continue reading →

The natural order of medieval society

Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian school economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher, gave a talk in 2018 with the title “The Libertarian Quest for a Grand Historical Narrative“. In it, he said the following:

“While many libertarians fancy an anarchic social order as a largely horizontal order without hierarchies and different ranks of authority – as “anti-authoritarian” – the medieval example of a State-less society teaches otherwise. Peace was not maintained by the absence of hierarchies and ranks of authority, but by the absence of anything but social authority and ranks of social authority. Indeed, in contrast to the present order, which essentially recognizes only one authority, that of the State, the Middle Ages were characterized by a great multitude of competing, cooperating, overlapping and hierarchically ordered ranks of social authority. There was the authority of the heads of family households and of various kinship groups. There were patrons, lords, overlords and feudal kings with their estates, and their vassals, and the vassals of vassals. There were countless different and separate communities and towns, and a huge variety of religious, artistic, professional and social orders, councils, assemblies, guilds, associations and clubs, each with their own rules, hierarchies and rank orders. In addition, and of utmost importance, there were the authorities of the local priest, the more distant bishop, and of the Pope in Rome.”

It is exactly this multitude of hierarchies and authorities which could, in the long term, be the guarantor of freedom and prosperity. Historian, economist and theologian Dr. Gary North has identified four authorities in human societies that are biblically ordained: The individual, the family, the church and the state (or, in medieval times, proto-state). They are constantly competing against each other, attempting to become the monopoly authority, thereby however preventing a monopoly of any one of them. Sometimes however, one of them becomes overbearing. Then society crumbles and falls apart. And the competition begins anew.

North writes about these competing authorities extensively in his book “God’s Covenants“. This is from the introduction:

“This book discusses three covenantal units that have operated in history from the beginning: individual, church, and family. It then discusses a fourth covenantal institution, civil, which began after the Fall of man.”

On Christianity and International Order

Religion is the only power that can meet the forces of destruction on equal terms

This is part 9 of my notes on the thoughts and ideas of Christopher Dawson. (In brackets the page numbers of each quote from TRBRAC, unless another book mentioned. “PwG” refers to my own thoughts.)     

Dawson proposes not a League of Nations but a Confederation, a league of federations, that would unite the nations of the world. (p. 245)

Dawson states that such a federation would work only if it were based on some spiritual force, and he believes that we should look to Christianity to supply this spiritual force. Just as Christianity, in the past, was the basis of unity in Europe, so too, can it bring about world unity. (p. 245)

(PwG:) This is of course the total counter-vision to secular world government.

Continue reading →