Carl Schmitt And The Historical Evolution Of Leftism

Carl Schmitt was a Nazi. He was also one of the most important political philosophers of the twentieth century. But he was a Nazi, and for some, that’s all that matters.

Among the liberally inclined, you will rarely find Schmitt’s name mentioned favorably—while the post-liberal left found his work thought-provoking, Schmitt has always been an enemy of liberalism. You see, Schmitt claimed that the friend-enemy distinction was fundamental to politics, that people define themselves primarily by what they are not or what they are against rather than what they are or are for. Liberals know this belief to be false; they’re not like those … Nazis.

Schmitt’s critique—though critique is far too soft a word—of liberalism has a number of components, and today we’ll take a look at one particular work of his, The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations from 1929. In this short article, Schmitt describes the evolution of European thought in terms of what he calls central domains. After reviewing Schmitt’s account, we’ll enrich it with various other versions of the same story. Finally, we’ll analyze various contemporary ideologies through the lens of central domains.

Schmitt begins in the 16th century, the era of the Protestant Reformation and various wars of religion. The Protestant Reformation shattered the respublica Christiania, the spiritual commonwealth of Christendom, and ushered in a period of internecine strife unmatched in intensity since the Peloponnesian War. Out of these struggles emerged the concept of cuius regio, eius religio, of whom the rulership, of him the religion, since Protestant subjects would not accept a Catholic ruler and vice versa.

As Schmitt describes, theology was the central domain of the 16th century, the intellectual sphere in which disagreements principally occurred. “If a domain of thought becomes central,” he writes, “then the problems of other domains are solved in terms of the central domain—they are considered secondary problems, whose solution follows as a matter of course only if the problems of the central domain are solved.” During the 1500s, disputes were primarily theological, but as soon as theological questions were satisfactorily answered, answers for everything else followed as a matter of course.

In essence, what the thinkers of the 16th century were trying to accomplish was to recapture the relative peace and tranquility of the Middle Ages, and this they eventually managed to do quite successfully, as Schmitt describes in his later work The Nomos of the Earth. Practical men, jurists, politicians, and generals, were quite capable of crafting a satisfactory political order, but the intellectuals found it impossible to do so for long. The quest thus began for something on which everyone could agree, which would theoretically provide a much more permanent ground for political order.

The quest for the universal, what Schmitt calls a process of neutralization, produced the following progression. After the theological 16th century came the metaphysical 17th century; when people couldn’t agree on a metaphysics, they shifted to humanitarian moralism in 18th; when that proved divisive, economics emerged as the central domain of the 19th century; and finally, technology replaced economics in the 20th century. Each transition was marked by the substitution of a neutral domain for the old central domain in the hopes that this neutral field would be something more universal. People are creative when it comes to reasons to quarrel, however, and so each attempt was met with failure.

Intellectual historians might easily dissect Schmitt’s rather breezy summary of over 400 years of European thought, but when it comes to the 20th century, Schmitt is spot-on and even remarkably prescient. Technology is ostensibly the perfect, neutral domain: “Here all peoples and nations, all classes and religions, all generations and races appear to be able to agree because all make use of and take for granted the advantages and amenities of technical comforts.” Technology serves all equally, so we should stop arguing about religion, culture, or economics and focus simply on finding what works.

However, Schmitt observes that “Technology is always an instrument and weapon; precisely because it serves all, it is not neutral.” To make technology the central domain is to suppose that all other meaningful questions have been answered and all that remains is determining how to achieve them. Schmitt did not believe this was possible in the long run, but the Cold War proved him wrong. The only serious challenge to leftism in the 20th century was Nazism, which was quickly quashed and expunged. The conflict between the capitalist West and the communist East was about the proper means for achieving the same leftist ends of freedom and equality.

Technology as the central domain of the 20th century helps explain the exultation of the 1990s, exemplified in Francis Fukuyama’s premature declaration of “the end of history.” Not only had Western intellectuals found a perfectly neutral domain, but they had also finally come to universal agreement within that domain. The technological question had been answered, and that meant the answers to every other question would just follow naturally. There was at long last nothing to kill or die for.

The current century has pulled the clouds over the sunny optimism of the 1990s, but before diving into the current milieu, let us take a moment to enrich Schmitt’s historical account with two others. The first is the rise of leftism, conceived of as an outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation, and the second is Alvin Gouldner’s story of the rise of the intellectuals. Neither narrative contradicts Schmitt’s, and indeed we can learn a great deal by combining all three.

Let us begin with the original sin of the Protestant Reformation: the simultaneous destruction of authority and exaltation of the individual by placing every man immediately under God. This set off a centuries-long holiness spiral as people sought to prove their moral superiority over their neighbors by embracing and intensifying a bundle of beliefs collectively known as leftism that had become high status and had captured status mechanisms. Over time, leftism subverted and destroyed its opposition, establishing the ideological hegemony we all know and love today.

After the Reformation, leftism achieved its ultimate supremacy slowly through the Enlightenment, culminating in the French Revolution. As the pragmatocracy set to work reestablishing order, the intellectuals found the siren call of leftism irresistible and so undermined what the kings and ministers had built. The non-ideological conservatism of Burke and the purely Catholic tradition of which Schmitt and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn were heirs proved ineffective, and their lines largely died out after the First World War. Indeed, the Burkeans have largely accommodated themselves to the ascendancy of leftism, serving principally to consolidate the gains of the radicals.

Astute readers will notice a distinction we’ve been eliding: that between leftism and liberalism. Strictly speaking, liberalism is a sect of leftism, but until recently it was the only major variety. Post-liberal leftism has only gained prominence today in the 21st century. This new version of leftism is specifically anti-Western, and most of its differences with liberalism can be traced back to that feature. However, it will almost certainly be cast aside when the West falls and the rest of the world starts carving it up for spoils. We will talk about this distinction more later.

Now, let’s throw Alvin Ward Gouldner into the mix. Joseph Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy serves as a good supplement for Gouldner. Though he doesn’t cite Schumpeter explicitly, Gouldner extends his thesis that the intellectuals are taking over and ushering in socialism to include a history of this transformation.

The intellectuals grew up out of the city-dwelling merchant class during the Middle Ages and allied themselves with the merchants to overthrow first the Church and then the nobility. To this end, the intellectuals articulated the doctrines of leftism, giving moral justification to the merchants’ rise. However, once this former middle class achieved ascendancy, cracks began emerging in the old alliance, exemplified in the apocalyptic creed of Marxism, whereby the intellectuals prophesied the ultimate destruction of their merchant rivals.

Writing in the 1970s, Gouldner saw the great political contest to be not between capitalism and communism per se, but between the owners of capital and the university-educated intellectuals. Indeed, university education is now all but mandatory for many business careers. Though Gouldner was an intellectual himself, he was not entirely sanguine about the ascendance of his class—still wedded to the liberal ideal of a classless society, Gouldner could merely hope that his colleagues would indeed carry out the program they have been espousing for the past 500 years.

Combining these two narratives with Schmitt’s reveals three crucial points. The first is that liberalism is a flight from responsibility but in a more subtle form than that exemplified in the welfare queen. A wastrel merely wishes to live forever as a child with his parents or surrogates taking care of him and keeping him from suffering any pain or discomfiture; LARPing is his preferred mode of existence. While the dream of LARPing is certainly a component of liberalism—most visible in the vision of the future presented in Star Trek—liberalism is truly seeking a return to its prelapsarian fantasy of the Middle Ages through the creation of a mechanistic state-society.

Liberalism desires there to be no more serious decisions to make; not merely that there be no more killing and dying but that there be nothing at all to kill or die for. This immaturity of liberalism can be summed up as the denial of the Political, but that is a matter for another time.

The second answers the question of who is responsible for this evolution. The intellectuals, specifically but by no means exclusively Protestant intellectuals, are the demonic figures in this tale. The merchants are not blameless, and it’s doubtful the Jews did much to arrest the progress of leftism. Additionally, leftism has been given its greatest gift in the form of insecure, democratic government, which further solidifies and makes the left-right distinction much more sociopolitically salient.

Finally, we can see clearly that liberalism requires the existence of a central domain in order to be a living intellectual tradition. Indeed, if the utopia and state-society were actually accomplished along liberal lines, most intellectual activity, aside from natural science, would cease to be worthwhile. If all serious questions are answered, then there is no need to keep asking them. If the problems of the central domain are ever resolved, then liberalism ceases to exist.

This brings us back to the present day. The fact of the matter is that history did end when the Berlin Wall fell and communism stood revealed and ashamed before the world. With the resolution of the technological problem, capitalism vs. communism, the liberal epoch came to an abrupt conclusion. There was nothing left for liberalism to do—all its problems had been solved.

This means that we are today living in a post-liberal epoch. It has taken some decades for the putrefaction of liberalism has become widely apparent and there are still many people in denial—most notably the libertarians—but the plain fact is becoming harder and harder to refute that liberalism is dead, killed by its own success. The next step, of course, is to build something new out of the rubble, which many parties have been attempting to do.

With the death of liberalism dies also the usefulness of the central domain concept that Schmitt employed, but it does not mean that the concept must be totally discarded. It must simply be reworked, changed slightly to fulfill a different purpose. Rather than organizing the thought of Western society, a central domain can be conceived on an ideological level, with each ideology having its own central domain. Ideologies can then be classified and differentiated according to their central domains. In this case, the central domain of an ideology is the issue which it considers primary, the one it seeks to resolve first and foremost, with solutions to all other problems being subsidiary.

While doing this, we have to be careful, as there is emerging a new area which might appear to be a new central domain in the original sense: identity. Samuel Huntington argued that issues of identity would be crucial in the 21st century. Identity politics is becoming ever more fashionable, and indeed, once identity is sorted out, once we agree on “who we are,” pretty much everything else appears to follow nicely. However, this appearance is misleading.

Identity has always been the central political issue; it just has not usually been so baldly stated as such.

Let’s look at libertarianism first. Many libertarians these days—especially the vocally left-libertarians—are somewhat put off by their ideology being labelled right-wing because it has little to with the right from more than 50 years ago. Still, libertarianism’s central domain is economics, the old central domain of 19th century leftism. This is particularly true of anarcho-capitalism, which is supposedly content with any social arrangement that comes about as long as the appropriate property rules are respected. In this sense, libertarianism is quite reactionary, being stuck in the mindset of over a hundred years ago.

The post-liberal left is really quite variegated when examined closely enough, and many segments disagree with each other vehemently, but they do all share an identifiable central domain: equality. As soon as equality is achieved, they profess, then everything will be hunky-dory. Of course, different groups prioritize different forms of equality, but so far the post-liberal powers have narrowed the field down to half-a-dozen or so and done a pretty good job of forcing the ideology’s devotees to agree to all of these forms of equality. Whether this alliance can stand the test of time remains to be seen.

When we go outside leftism, we run into a difficulty trying to use the notion of central domains: non-leftist ideologies don’t typically say, “Fix this one thing, and we’ll be done forever.” This means that other ideologies don’t have a central domain in quite the same way that leftism did and does. Thus, we have to be a little looser in our usage of the term: non-leftist central domains are not proposed silver bullets but rather diagnoses for what is wrong about leftism and the contemporary world. It might still be hard to summarize an ideology’s viewpoint, but let’s see what we can do.

Burkean conservatism is so unprincipled in its opposition to leftism that its central domain is easy to identify: speed. Burkeans want the left to slow down and let them catch their breath before hurrying on to the next radical re-imagining of society.

Authentic rightist ideology has authority as its central domain. Leftism ascribes equal authority to every individual, thereby stripping those in possession of true authority of their proper esteem and empowering both the oppressed and most especially those who have the privilege of identifying and championing the oppressed. Unfortunately, it is difficult in this day and age to identify just who should have authority—the Church? Businessmen? Old royal families?

And if one chooses a particular bastion of authority to champion, one will invariably be disappointed, as not only are they all manifestly unworthy of power, but they don’t even want it anymore.

Neoreaction addresses this problem by means of a different, though by no means new, central domain: virtue. The rallying cry of neoreaction is not some version of “Power to the ______!” but rather “Become worthy.” Since even before Plato, wise men have observed that only the virtuous truly deserve power and esteem, though the world often conspires to rob them of their proper station. But in times of chaos, people seek out bastions of order and strength.

Neoreaction is also the perfect foil to the immaturity of leftism. Where a leftist demands that the world reorder itself to become congruent with his petty conceits and childish fantasies, a neoreactionary understands that the world is not his to command, and he should focus his attention first on those matters within his sphere of control. Only after he has proved himself worthy of greater power should he presume to exercise it.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. Michael Rothblatt October 13, 2016 at 11:52 am

    Before someone calls something 19th century leftism, one would be wise to know what supposed leftists actually advocated. If someone (Gustave de Molinari the father of anarcho-capitalism) who advocated official state religion and enserfment of vast majority of the human race (he did not believe that women, non-white races, as well as white working class were ready for the liberty he theorized about, rather, he claimed, they are to be submitted to the condition of “tutelage”) is a leftist, then I don’t know who is right-wing. Truth be told, libertarians are “autistic” whereas their ideological forebear was not.

    1. Another of the seemingly endless examples of how the the right-left paradigm is useless beyond very specific usage. Ironically, this obsession with putting everything into neat little systems is a modern (‘leftist’) abberration.

      Divine versus satanic is far more accurate, and useful.

      1. Michael Rothblatt October 15, 2016 at 3:29 am

        It seems to me the left part of the spectrum works fine. Leftists support equality, and so, the more equality you support the more left-wing you are. The right is problematic. As this post says “rightist ideology has authority as its central domain”, and in the absence of well-ordered society there are many sources of authority. It’s nothing new. Left is universalist, right is particularist. Whereas Red Army was monolithic in Russian Revolution, the White Army very much resembled the Alt-Right, having members of various right-ideologies (and even the anti-Bolshevik left).

  2. And the best thing about truly fit authority is that it is practically self-legitimating. People naturally want to follow a leader who takes authority seriously, governs himself and others accordingly, and demonstrates it in his bearing and actions. In this respect, the new Reaction is uniquely in a position to actually make good on the Utopian dream of “spontaneous order”- something the various crypto-anarchist ideologies going around now are quite unable to do, since they reject personal authority and await a Messiah in the form of an unconscious teleology given in a play of non-thinking “material” forces wholly independent of human volition. (Laissez-faire and Marxism are about as different as Coke and Pepsi in this respect).

    1. Michael Rothblatt October 13, 2016 at 12:23 pm

      > Utopian dream of “spontaneous order”
      Yeah that evolution thingy failed miserably. That’s why no living being exists! Wait something’s not quite right with that sort of reasoning…

      >an unconscious teleology given in a play of non-thinking “material” forces wholly independent of human volition (Laissez-faire and Marxism are about as different as Coke and Pepsi in this respect)

      I don’t think you sir, know what you’re talking about. No one believes in history guided by non-thinking forces (least of all the laissez-faire thinkers!) but Marxists and some of the reactionaries like de Maistre from whom Marxists pilfered it.

    2. Michael Rothblatt October 13, 2016 at 12:55 pm

      I mean, for crying out a loud “Human Action” is called *Human* Action for a reason. It should be a hint enough. [sigh]

  3. Good article, A few brief thoughts

    1) You get a lot right, but one thing you get dead wrong is this idea that “Liberalism is dead”. This, in fact, is just not the case. Liberalism however wounded or ill it may be is alive and kicking and presently practicing hegemony over a decent portion of the Globe, most noticeably in these great United States.

    The idea that it’s death is inevitable is to make the same mistake Liberals make when they declare their victory is inevitable, just in reverse. It does have a tendency to undermine itself in the long run, but to think its just going to roll over is a bit overly optimistic.

    2)You are correct that the question of identity is the central one, but the question of “who we are” will not be answered by appealing to a shared zoological classification, rather it is essentially a theological question which has a theological answer. Something I have a feeling Mr. Schmidt would have agreed with me on.

    1. I think the author says that when Liberalism is dead, he means the kind of Liberalism that gives us a materialistic, hedonistic, moral relativist and consumerist society we are in now. It is best exemplified by the big business class and the entertainment industry (think Kim Kardashian and Justin Bieber) who are downright wordly and do not hold any real moral standard other than making themselves rich and seeking pleasure. The kind of “everyone is equal” and the “free love” stuff of the 60’s.

      Liberalism, I think, will be soon replaced with Progressivism, in which there will be a social hierachy based on degrees of oppression, with Muslims on top of that. The author of this article says leftism gives everyone an equal position, so there is no authority and hierachy. I think that could only describes Liberalism, not Progressivism. Under Progressivism, a transgender African woman or perhaps a Muslim would actually be the best candidate for president, because “it’s the current year”.

      Some people say there is no difference between Liberalism and Leftism, but I beg otherwise. Liberalism is but a strain of Leftism, and it’s not the most virulent strain (Progressivism is). With the rise of Progressivism, I think the big house of Leftism is going to collapse bit by bit. I have seen nonwhite leftists abusing white leftists for daring to talk about race, white feminists being denounced by black feminists, and certain radical feminists attacking our hypersexualised entertainment industry for catering to the male sexual desires.

      1. Here is a not very close example of what I said:

        Basically a representative of the Liberal entertainment industry has to defend his industry from attacks by the body-obsessed feminists.

        In the future, I believe, Progressivists will become even more aggressive in their demands towards the Liberals, who will be deemed to be not progressive enough.

        It would be funny to see Progressivists demanding fashion shows to be 50% transgender models, or to show hijabi clad (and well covered, bodily) models to avoid offending Muslims.
        It will surely, however, drive the few Leftists who are still sane up the wall. Which is something we Reactionaries could perhaps exploit.

  4. Very good article, thanks SM. The fact that this is the first time I have heard of Carl Schmitt goes a long way to show that how much our society is censored, even up to the highest echelons of the ivory tower of academia.

  5. I might also want to add here that the post liberal left that this article refers to actually has a name: it’s called Progressivism, or as we called them, Cultural Marxism or Regressive Leftism.

    1. “Regressive leftism” is more a term used by the alt-lite, as it implicitly criticizes the left for not being progressive *enough*, which invokes weird holiness spiraling about which weird leftist sect is the holiest. Basic liberals, who haven’t swallowed *all* the kool-aid, use the term because they imagine themselves as the holiest brand of leftism.

      Just calling it progressivism seems good enough.

  6. “I don’t think you sir, know what you’re talking about. No one believes in history guided by non-thinking forces (least of all the laissez-faire thinkers!)”

    Are you kidding me here? This type of thing has infested social-science thinking from the very outset. The tendency has been described by the two greatest 20th c. theorists of human action, Talcott Parsons and Ludwig von Mises, as “radical positivism” and “passive determinism” respectively.

    Radical positivism/passive determinism sees human behaviour as mechanically controlled by some combination of physical stimuli (or alternately, an opportunity structure) in the external environment and/or unconscious biological drives and instincts in the internal environment of the organism, or else (in a weaker version) unintended consequences of which the human actor either has no awareness or cannot control in any case. Either way, human will and volition are regarded as superfluous and irrelevant from an explanatory point of view.

    One form or another of radical positivism/passive determinism comprises the cornerstone of anarchist thought, and of crypto-anarchist ideologies such as Libertarianism, all of which believe that it’s possible, in the right form of environment, for human activities to be spontaneously and automatically ordered and coordinated without the help of the State or authority of any kind, which are to be abolished. They also believe that automatic and unplanned forces will teleologically and inexorably impel Mankind towards the creation of this very ideal environment at the end of History. Marx was far from the only person who thought this.

    1. Michael Rothblatt October 13, 2016 at 4:45 pm

      What?! Using Ludwig von Mises, the greatest 20th century advocate of laissez-faire to attack laissez-faire? This is a new one. Unless we mean different things by laissez-faire.

      >without the help of the State or authority of any kind

      That is not true (as testified by all the Physical Removal memes). Read the Hoppe interview

      “I don’t think that we, in the Western world, can go back to clans and tribes. The modern, democratic state has destroyed clans and tribes and their hierarchical structures, because they stood in the way of the state’s drive toward absolute power. With clans and tribes gone, we must try it with the model of a private law-society that I have described. But wherever traditional, hierarchical clan and tribe structures still exist, they should be supported; and attempts to “modernize” “archaic” justice systems along Western lines should be viewed with utmost suspicion.”

      They do believe in hierarchies, authorities (and the state, they just do not call it state). They do not consider any present state as having a legitimacy (because it is not owned), so they tend to support all kinds of, what we deem autistic (and socially destructive) policies, but if someone in ancapistan owned a land, it would be perfectly legitimate according to libertarian philosophy, to run it in any way the owner wishes (basically they believe in patchwork of truly absolute monarchies). All the leftist critiques of ancap are basically that it will lead to Neo-Feudalism (which is endorsement from where I am standing).

      The problem with libertarianism is of entirely different nature (apart of all the deontological wankery that is) as Moldbug explained in Formalist Manifesto.

      1. OK, that seems fair enough. Mind you, Hoppe seems to represent something very different from what I’d ordinarily think of as “Libertarian”. Judging from the interview, if anything he seems to have a lot more in common with the tradition originally called “Reactionary”. (I have his book on file somewhere, but haven’t gotten around to reading it yet). When I hear words like “laissez-faire” or “Libertarian”, I understand the idea that economic exchange, by itself, gives rise to secondary, “emergent” phenomena that are self-stabilizing and so can supply most or all of the social discipline and control needed in order for society to function, save perhaps for enforcing contracts, and without anybody actually planning for it to happen.

        1. Michael Rothblatt October 14, 2016 at 7:20 am

          There are two mutually opposed strands of what is deemed libertarian thought, let’s call them “Aristotelian” (e.g. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Edward C. Feser) and “Neoliberal” (e.g. David Friedman, Bryan Caplan). “Aristotelians” are closer to reactionaries (though they still suffer from many Enlightenment blunders, like rejecting Natural Law when it clashes with individualism, and supposing that everyone has equal agency thus equating women and natural slaves with natural aristocrats, however, given their absolute propertarianism problems arising from those errors can be avoided, but still), whereas “Neoliberals” are as you describe, though I think they’re even worse than you describe (they don’t believe in necessity of social discipline and control at all; whereas “Aristotelians” err in supposing that all violence is wrong, non-aggression being their first principle, “Neoliberals” are materialist-utilitarians of the worst sort).

          1. Yes, that’s the terminology I was looking for, and the distinction that needs to be made. It is the neoliberals who imagine that men are born rational economic actors, as opposed to being formed for rational economic activity by discipline. The classical Liberals and Libertarians knew very well that capitalism rests on pillars of virtue that can only be supplied by and under authority.

          2. Michael Rothblatt October 14, 2016 at 3:38 pm

            From your comments elsewhere, I’ve seen that you hold similar positions to my own, and so I was shocked to see the claim that spontaneous order is utopian, but now I see we use the word differently. Sorry if I sounded harsh.
            I use the word in Hayekian sense.
            In NRx circles crab used to be a popular meme, signifying the phenomenon of carcinization. One of the examples often given is that mutually independent peoples evolved the same traditions. It’s because those traditions lead to success, those that didn’t have gone extinct. We can observe spontaneous order in work in real time. For example, the peoples that abandoned “family values” and the institution of “patriarchy” are afflicted with “white plague”, the sub-replacement fertility.

  7. Oh for crying out loud. In spite of being debunked you still blame protestantism for leftism? So being faithful to the tradition of the supreme infallible rule of God breathed scripture by which tradition is measured as our church Fathers taught is leftism?

    1. This is not a very high quality comment.

      1. It is indeed not. I think this website addressed a response to the protestant question:

        And another that seems to be more fair:

        I was really getting sick and tired of protestants being blamed for progressivism through and through prior to seeing this article.

        I apologize for not thinking my comment through. It was very emotional of me to do so.

    2. You seem to contradict yourself by associating Protestantism with the Church Fathers, while providing no proof for the supposed “debunking” of the Puritan Hypothesis.

      Do you have anything to offer on this second point?

    3. Dinky Diddlysddums October 13, 2016 at 9:12 pm

      Reading these illogical Christian comments on a site which was once the high point of rational, clear-headed reactionary thinking makes me very depressed.

      What’s even more depressing is that the Christians, when challenged, never actually use reason. They just loudly proclaim that they’re actually the most rational ones, cos’ God sez so. I’ve seen some truly atrocious circular reasoning from Christian apologists on this website.

      Hey Christians – there is no way any reasonably intelligent individual is going to swallow the story of a supernatural force invading a Jewish woman’s womb 2000 years ago. What was going on for all the previous billions of years of earth’s history? Where was your God then? If we prove chimps and dolphins have free will, how will you explain why God never sent apostles to nonhuman species? Surely He does not approve of dolphins gangraping each other.

      And no sane person can believe that a corpse was brought back to life. Or that any of your “saints” actually performed any of the miracles that are attributed to them. Far more likely a few pious and suggestible dunces just agreed to whatever some charismatic bishop told them.

      If one can suspend one’s critical thinking faculties enough to take the incredibly silly myths of Christ’s life at face value, it becomes questionable whether they should be trusted to perform rational analysis of sociological questions.

      1. You keep changing your screen name and grinding the same axe. Do it again, and it’s a permaban.

      2. Quintus Valerius October 14, 2016 at 1:00 pm

        I heartily agree. Christianity is obviously false as has been repeatedly proven by archeology, linguistics, and history. The entire Old Testament upon which it is based is nothing more than a collection of fables written during the Jewish exile in Babylon. It’s obvious that Yahweh is nothing more than a re-branded version of other Levantine gods which existed both before and afterwards. Here’s just a starter page on the question:

        Archeology definitively proves that most of the OT tales are nothing but fabrications or exaggerations.

        In ancient Rome and Greece, most elites were agnostic or atheist but they used religion as a tool to manage the ruled.

        This is the role for religion to which the modern-day reactionary should aspire. It’s fine if some elites wish to believe in religion as well but they must understand that the purpose of the state is to be the supreme ruler of the territory and that includes religions.

        The biggest problem with religion being too involved in politics is when advocates assume that their god will magically enable their rule. This could not be more delusional.

        The other danger of Christianity is its inherent universalism. It’s impossible to stop the idea that all are equal before God from mutating into the idea that all humans are equal before each other.

        1. Are you very sure you are not just listening to leftist propaganda my friend?

    4. Brandon Francis October 13, 2016 at 9:18 pm

      “So being faithful to the tradition of the supreme infallible rule of God breathed scripture”

      Just sit back and listen to yourself. Have you ever even read the bible? The idea that it is infallible is beyond absurd. It is just a collection of books from the ancient world thousands of years apart from one another and with a bunch of different authors that have never meet each other and different languages that have nothing to do with each other at all. It’s is just a collection of books that are unrelated to each other made into a volume by someone using some short of arbitrary criteria that someone just made up and called it the “word of god” with absolutely no evidence to justify such a claim at all. In a world of below a 10% literacy rate(which the ancient world was) that idea of a god creating book over a thousand year time span to an mostly illiterate world in which 90% of people would not be able to read it as a method in order to spread his word of ‘salvation’ to everyone is the most retarded story imaginable and sheer insanity yet every Protestant Christian in the world must and does believe this insanity. The hypothesis that Protestantism(an profoundly insane idea) gave birth to leftism via liberalism(ideas just as profoundly insane) isn’t that unthinkable.

    5. Yes, it is Protestantism. I have no idea what this “Puritan Hypothesis” is, but I will say regardless that there have never been two more pernicious doctrines than sola scriptura and nominalism/voluntarism. The idea of the Godman, paired with imago Dei and and absolutely unmediated voluntarism has nearly destroyed the West and turned Western man into a spineless locus of will pure will. The culmination of this is the Death of God. I refuse to believe in a God who creates the creature that abolishes him.

      Voluntarism preposes that God’s will is above his nature, or that he has no stable rational nature, as this will restrict his power.
      Man being made in his image is turned from the Platonic unity of Intellect, Spirit, and Body, into pure will.
      The sensible and the super-sensible are collapsed (the Enlightenment — Eschatology becomes progress, Truth becomes Reason and Empiricism etc.).
      The sensible therefore has no ground on which it is based, and one is left with neither sensible reality nor the supersensible, and we are left with will alone. This is Nietzsche, the arch-Lutheran.

  8. non-leftist ideologies don’t typically say, “Fix this one thing, and we’ll be done forever.”

    I find this ironic coming from a monarchist.

  9. If leftism is merely an offshoot of the Protestant Reformation and the Puritans (ala Moldbug) then why did the monumental revolution which birthed pan-European modernity occur in Catholic France? Why did the seminal Marxist revolution occur in Orthodox Russia?

    Universalism is apostate Christianity, but not only of the Protestant or Puritan variety. The Social Gospel movement which brought us New England Progressivism came much later than the Catholic and Orthodox versions of Universalism in Europe.

Comments are closed.