As I mentioned in a previous post, I’ve set out to tackle the Harvard Classics. These are what the President of Harvard at the turn of the 20th Century determined was the core of western thought. The goal was to create a set of works which, if read, would give the reader a solid liberal education, measured by turn of the 20th century standards.
One might be concerned that I am using Harvard’s recommendations. After all, Harvard is, according to neo-reactionary theory, the root of modern ills. But back then, universities were still concerned about making their students as knowledgeable as possible. So while it might not be a reactionary set, it certainly doesn’t push anything near a progressive agenda.
Don’t take my word for it, read their lecture on US History. Not only will you be much better informed about US history, you will see what a narrative of American history devoid of progressive input looks like. It is a noticeable difference versus everything you’ve seen before.
The second batch of Anti-Federalists I’ll be looking at more dissenting convention members. They hold differing criticisms, so I’ll look at the three works individually.
Robert Yates and John Lansing hail from New York. They were serving at the convention with Alexander Hamilton, who was one of the writers of the Federalist Papers. In their letter to the New York state assembly, they outline their concerns with the new Constitution.
Lawyer, blogger, author, journalist and film producer Mike Cernovich recently released his latest book “MAGA Mindset: Making YOU and America Great Again”. The book combines an analysis of the cultural forces driving the Trump campaign with a discussion of Trump’s advice in his books and social media and the mindset principles underlying them.
If I had to describe the book in just a sentence, it is SJWs Always Lie meets Gorilla Mindset condensed to their core, with a unifying theme of Donald Trump.
Some people have a hard time understanding what Donald Trump says when he says “the system is rigged”. People who oppose him like to imagine it means rigged elections and that he’s casting doubt on the entire political system.
The truth is much simpler, and more sinister than that.
In the United States, public opinion determines the outcome of elections. If public opinion was an independent force, that would be the end of it. In the age of mass media and state education, it is not.
Public opinion is, tautologically, the sum of the opinions of members of the population. If individual opinions can be controlled, so can public opinion.
There’s a great tension today between two fundamental human freedoms. The first is freedom of thought and expression. A free person is able think, inquire, and express themselves and remain a regular member of society. The second is freedom of association. A free person only engages in activities they consent to. These come into conflict when one person refuses to associate with another over the second person’s expression.
In theory, this is easily resolved. Transactions are so common that missing out on one is a small price to pay for maintaining freedom of association. However, this isn’t as simple as it seems. For most people, their income comes from a single source. If your employer doesn’t want to associate with you, your livelihood is at risk.
This short piece is here to introduce a problem-solving concept I’ve had and wanted to share.
The eponymous example deals with an outrageously sized knot. It was said that whoever could undo the knot would rule the world. When Alexander the Great happened upon it in his conquest of Egypt, he took out his sword and sliced through the rope.
The past few days it has become apparent that at least parts of the party apparatus of the GOP; the paid, connected people who have been in politics for years and just want to maintain their position win-or-lose, are making sure to do as little as possible to help Trump this election. Some are acting to sabotage him.
I think the GOP needs to be a party that is in opposition to the progressive world we live in, and not a partner in maintaining it. That’s why I am going to do my part to take over the direction of the party.
It has been a very busy month for me and I’ve been neglecting these link posts. One reason is that as the election draws closer, more and more goes to election focused coverage, and I generally avoid that. Here’s what I’ve saved up over the past month:
The Dark History of Trump’s Rightwing Revolt covers the Journal of American Greatness and was written shortly before the re-emergence of Publius Decius Mus and the new American Greatness blog. Abolish the White Race is a 14 year old book excerpt from a Harvard professor which I encourage you to read as it shows the depths to which people in academia have sunk and have been for years. Constitutional Heresy exposes the basic logical failings of the “Magic Dirt” hypothesis so many cling to and asserts that the society is more important than its laws. What You Need to Do If Hillary Wins outlines what is, in essence, a call to Moldbug’s passivism should Hillary win in November. Who Will Rule: The New Oligarchy — or the American People? is just the latest in a storm of excellent columns written by Publius Decius Mus, who not only has excellent things to say but also writes at a higher level than most today. Writing pieces at his level of excellence is a personal aspiration.
Liberal arts is an important field of study. It is also one which can be (and even in a college setting, largely is) self-taught. What most people get today is a far cry from what would be considered standard 100 years ago. The American founders would cry to see how far we’ve fallen when it comes to practicing the Western Canon. I myself am not nearly as well versed in it as I ought to be.
Charles William Elliot, former president of Harvard, claimed that one could achieve a full liberal education from reading 15 minutes a day from a 5-foot shelf. By my estimation, at 15 minutes per day, every day, this would take 18 months at a typical reading pace.