On the Faculties of Reason, Discernment, and Discrimination:
Toward a More Enlightened Approach to Culture, Morals, and Ideas
The Essential Faculties of Reason, Discernment, and Discrimination
The faculties of reason, discernment, and discrimination are as indispensable as they are vital, but all too often remain under-utilized by far too many. Many seem to be wanting of these very faculties altogether, or at least make no showing that they possess even the faintest ability to reason, to discern, and discriminate. And yet it is these very faculties that allow one to not only make sense of the world, but to both appraise and consider all matters concerning men and society, from writing and political and ideological ommentary, to arts and culture, to moral and religious systems. The powers of discernment reveal important distinctions and differences in all matter of things, while reason allows for understanding and insight about these differences. For it is through reason man ascertains the meaning and import of such differences. The faculty of discrimination allows one to act and respond both to these differences and the meaning derived from them.
In relation to this last essential faculty, consider how the very concept of discrimination has been sullied and subverted in recent times. Decades of civil rights propaganda pushing the mad delirium of multiracialism have tainted the words “discrimination” and “to discriminate” in such a way that many shy away from their usage. Definitions of these words in The New Shorter Oxford English are noteworthy. To “discriminate” is defined as follows:
1 Make or constitute a difference in or between; distinguish, differentiate. E17 2 Distinguish with the mind; perceive the difference in or between. E17. 3 Make or recognize a distinction, esp. a fine one; provide or serve as a distinction; exercise discernment. L17. 4 Make a distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. unjustly or prejudicially against people on grounds of race, colour, sex, social status, age, etc. L19.
The same volume defines discrimination as follows, with arcane definitions omitted:
1 The action or an act of discriminating or distinguishing; the fact or condition of being discriminated or distinguished; a distinction made. M17. b spec. The practice or an instance of discriminating against people on grounds of race, colour, sex, social status, age, etc.; an unjust or prejudicial distinction. . . . 4 The faculty of discriminating; the ability to observe accurately and make fine distinctions; perceptiveness, acuity, good judgement or taste. E19.
These words used to have wholly positive connotations. Consider for example the phrase “discriminating tastes,” a sense of the word denoted by the fourth definition of this essential faculty, namely “the ability to observe accurately and make fine distinctions; perceptiveness, acuity, good judgement or taste.” Over the past few decades, increasingly few dare to use these words in their proper sense or meaning. The true essence of this essential faculty implores a return to these original meanings, as denoted in the older, original definitions: the ability to “distinguish, differentiate” between differences, often very important differences. Given that some of the most important, profound differences are defined by race and sex, it is remarkable that discriminating on such a basis is presumed to somehow be “unfair or prejudicial.”
Interestingly, the order of operations between reason and discernment can transpose. As will be demonstrated, sometimes the individual first discerns essential differences which then leads to the use of reason on such matters, while in other instances the faculty of reason then leads the individual to discern important truths. Used together in tandem, these faculties allow one to avoid the seduction of rote dogma, while also allowing the individual to appraise and then adopt or reject arguments and contentions, or even parts of arguments and contentions, while rejecting others. This in turn allows the more thoughtful to embrace writers, thinkers, and others who provide unique insight and understanding on some matters but who nonetheless are wrong or mistaken about other matters, and even wrong or mistaken about a great deal of other matters. These same faculties unlock the door to a higher understanding and enlightenment of religious and moral systems, as well as refine and strengthen the very ideological framework that informs our understanding of human nature and the world at large.
Assessing Thinkers, Pundits, and the Arts and Culture
A survey of pundits, commentators, and so-called influencers of varying degrees of renown and obscurity reveals that even the best of such individuals get much right but also get a fair amount wrong. Others have less than ideal associations, which leads some to stupidly disregard the entire body of work of some individuals merely by guilt of association alone. Several examples illustrating these trends come to mind. One prime example is Matt Walsh. Many of a populist right and even ethno-nationalist perspective discount and even reject Walsh out of hand, and typically do so for two different reasons. While Walsh has made some controversial statements that contradict received orthodoxy on matters of race, he has never denounced the multiracial experiment categorically or in expressly racial terms. Nor has he asserted that some of the intractable problems stem from considerations of biology and evolutionary psychology. Others regard Walsh’s association with Ben Shapiro and his organization The Daily Wire as a far greater indictment. This is more salient than ever before given recent controversies surrounding Shapiro and his abject Jewish chauvinism, as his loyalties to Israel have been laid bare for all to see. Shapiro’s implosion is remarkable indeed, as it is a matter that widely disparate viewpoints are in seeming agreement, from Tucker Carlson to Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks.
These criticisms of Walsh in particular are certainly fair, to a certain extent. However, those who denounce or dismiss Matt Walsh carte blanche on all issues and matters are utterly short-sighted, regardless of how legitimate these grievances on other matters may be. Although the tide seems to be finally turning on the transgender menace, Walsh nonetheless played an important role in repudiating this twisted, destructive phenomenon. That it took longer than about five seconds is yet another indictment of mainstream conservatism as feckless and ineffectual. Walsh, however, was not an example of this. He never mitigated his words, never stated that the real problem with compelled customizable pronouns is that it is compelled speech, as did Jordan Peterson and other milquetoast sorts. He opposed them because they are wrong, because being a man or woman is an immutable characteristic and because pronouns are not customizable, that a man necessarily takes “he/him” pronouns as dictated by sound grammar and hard, biological reality, just as a woman takes “she/her” pronouns. He never minced words, never disclaimed or cautioned that he has no problems with adults who want to “transition,” that he just does not want these options available to children and minors. Indeed, Walsh opposed transgender nuttery outright, and was one of the most articulate voices on this issue. He has also offered wonderful commentary on a wide range of other matters, juxtaposing for example the social order in Singapore compared to the crime-ridden ghettoes in the United States.1[1] Similarly, his opposition to immigration has avoided the “it’s fine provided it is legal” pitfall that many mainstream conservatives have succumbed to.
Similar considerations apply to Tucker Carlson. Devon Stack of Black Pilled takes seemingly every opportunity to denounce Carlson, including constant and even repetitive reminders that he comes from unimaginable wealth, and thus part of the ruling class, and that his father was in the CIA. Carlson has also been rather mealy-mouthed on matters of race, even stating multiple times he prefers not to have to think about things in racial terms, for whites or other racial groups. While it is laudable how Carlson he exposed Piers Morgan for “loving a good curry” and signing off on his own demographic replacement, the manner in which Carlson placated anti-racist talking points, insisting he loves Pakistani people, blunted any intellectual and rhetorical focus that these pressing issues require. These and other shortcomings notwithstanding, he has been instrumental in exposing Ben Shapiro for the fraud he is, just as he introduced Darryl Cooper aka Martyrmade to a much wider audience. On the whole these are very positive developments.
First and foremost, consider that the process of deprogramming goes against a lifetime of propaganda and indoctrination: an intense, unremitting regimen of propaganda that begins in kindergarten if not before. Jared Taylor resisted for a decade or more murmurings in his internal dialogue that would eventually lead to his racial epiphany. Stack himself used to be a libertarian. Some see certain, hidden truths straightaway. For most however it is a gradual, painstaking process. Mainstream voices, although imperfect, are an instrumental component of this painstaking process which often takes years or decades. And yet certain figures dismiss figures like Tucker Carlson despite their unique and important property that helps erodes decades of programming and indoctrination that has been ingrained in the minds of generations.
Jared Taylor is another example demonstrating that few if any are singularly insightful and instructive on all matters of import. For decades he has offered excellent commentary and analysis on matters of race and the state of society today. He is famously reticent or even resistant to matters concerning the Jewish Question, however. These and other figures demonstrate that individuals and their thought share many similarities with tools and other instruments. Different instruments excel for different purposes. A hammer excels at driving nails, but is inadequate as a screwdriver. A table circular saw excels at cutting but cannot be used for drilling, just as a power drill excels at that purpose but cannot be used for other purposes. Admittedly, this is a somewhat crude and imperfect analogy, as many thinkers and writers are applicable to a great multitude of things, if not universally applicable to all matters under the sun. The analogy is nonetheless illustrative, as the same principle applies, to a some limited extent, to thinkers, writers, and pundits on any number of important matters. Walsh excels for commentary on transgender nuttery and other matters, is good to very good on matters of immigration and other social issues, but is not very suitable for matters concerning the “JQ,” just as he is somewhat wanting on matters of race. Taylor is excellent on matters of race, perhaps the best of all, but is not suitable for other matters that are best articulated by Kevin MacDonald, Devon Stack, and others.
The very same considerations apply to figures who get a lot more wrong than Taylor’s shortsightedness on the Jewish Question or Walsh’s guarded language about race, as they even apply to persons who embrace a greater number of positions that are objectionable or even anathema. Consider Abigail Shrier, author of Irreversible Damage. Shrier, as many readers are doubtlessly well aware, is not only Jewish but comes from a privileged, wealthy Jewish family. She went to an expensive private Jewish day school, attended and graduated Columbia University, before getting a Ph.D. at Oxford University and then earning a Juris Doctor from Yale School. With very few if any exceptions, a person with such credentials must not only possess superior intelligence but must also hail from that high level of privilege and wealth that can not only fund such prolonged, indefinite academic campaigns but also prepare and raise the individual from an early age to vie for these laurels. Despite being sensible on other matters besides just transgender nuttery, she has expressed reasonable positions on certain social issues of the day, including a discrediting look at the therapy and psychiatry rackets. But she has been unremittent on her support for Israel. Given her support of Israel and her Jewish chauvinism, as subtle as it may be, she invariably holds other unsavory positions as well. These and other considerations notwithstanding, it would be abjectly stupid to disregard Irreversible Damage, or not incorporate her insight and perspective on the transgender issue into the framework of reactionary populism and ethno-nationalism. Reason determines that her writings on transgenderism are persuasive and important, while one sees—through the powers of discernment—how these contentions differ from Zionist and other objectionable utterances. On the basis of these important distinctions, the critical thinker discriminates between these two types of offerings, adopting and embracing that which has merit and wields unique and important insight, and discarding that which does not.
An even more striking example concerns policy considerations and issues that figures on the left either get right, or get right in part. Consider the matter of suburban sprawl and car-centric “planning,” although use of that term is questionable because many see no planning at all. Two prominent accounts on YouTube come to mind: “Not Just Bikes,” real name Jason Slaughter, and “City Nerd,” real name Ray Delahanty, an obvious homosexual whose political proclivities belie being raised and educated in Seattle. On most all other matters, these influencers conform to leftist orthodoxy in lock-step fashion. This however does not change the fact that most of their observations on and assertions regarding suburban sprawl, car-centric “culture,” and the blight that afflicts the United States in particular are both insightful and informative. Slaughter in particular evokes all the worst stereotypes of white, liberal Canadians. And it is remarkable indeed that he praises urban planning in Europe but completely misses the racial element so important to these matters. Using these very faculties of reason, discernment, and discrimination allows the more astute and thoughtful to parse out observations and contentions that have merit, and discard the rest. Those who are not only endowed with these critical faculties but also disposed to using them understand that endorsement of some contentions by such figures does not mean one agrees with such figures on some or even most other matters
Similar considerations apply to other matters that the left gets right or has some merit on. Such issues include the student loan debt crisis (although blanket amnesty absent severe and drastic reforms will not solve the problem), the farce of the so-called health insurance industry in this country, as well as concerns about eating habits and what is allowed in food and beverage production in the United States. Right-wingers are correct to hate and despise Michelle Obama, but she was still right about soda pop and junk food in schools and in society at large. This same ability to discern and discriminate allows viewers to enjoy the documentary American Factory, despite its loose affiliation with the Obamas.2
There are arguably limits to this. It is a nigh certainty that Ben Shapiro has made sensible, even convincing utterances on a few, select matters. While it is true he certainly would not have enjoyed the appeal he did but for the dubious origins and designs of the moneyed interests backing him and The Daily Wire, it is also true he had to have offered unique, interesting insight on at least a few matters of import to draw large audiences from the mainstream conservative set. Such caveats notwithstanding, unless Shapiro or other unsavory persons uttered a comment or assertion that was both incredibly insightful and unique and simply not available anywhere else, a comment or observation attributed to Shapiro warrants, when possible, turning to substantially similar thoughts or observations by persons not quite so tainted.
On the other hand, any sensible person loathes Stalin, condemns him as far worse than Hitler, at the very least. That should not mean that sensible persons discard and denounce anything and everything he ever uttered, endorsed, or implemented, including this famous quip: “How many divisions does the pope have?” He was also alleged to have made an interesting comment about various shortcomings and peculiarities about the T-34, namely that “Quantity has a quality of its own.” The quote is likely apocryphal, i.e., falsely attributed. But if Stalin did in fact make this statement, should sensible people immediately reject it because it is attributed to Stalin? Denunciations of Mao Zedong seem similarly obligatory and sensical, and yet his unwavering brutality ended China’s centuries long-opium epidemic. Does an aversion or even revulsion for Mao Zedong require the adoption of legalization or tolerance of illicit drugs that are destroying untold number of lives in order to do the polar opposite of any and every policy position ever embraced by Mao? The answer is a resounding no.
These faculties of reason, discernment, and discrimination, working in concert, are particularly absent in the typical hysterical reaction to Adolph Hitler. Absent a more enlightened view on the true origins, causes, and consequences of World War II, even those who cling to national myths about World War II and American interventionism should be able to both denounce Hitler but recognize and discern statements and policies that are sensible and correct, such as, quite famously, the Autobahn or some of the world’s first modern environment protection laws, or even laws addressing sharp business practices such as those committed by the Barmat Brothers and others, almost invariably of an acute, odious kosher flavor. On the other hand, far more people should and ought to discern that the rise of Hitler and National Socialism is rightly attributed to very legitimate grievances, including the myriad injustices of the Versailles Diktat, that the occupation and demilitarization of the Rhineland was unjust, that Austria wanted to unify with Germany, and that Germany had legitimate territorial claims on Danzig (and arguably Poznan as well). Very few are able to do this, however, especially even those who stray from mainstream conservatism.
This sort of stupidity affects both sides of the political divide in America, most especially the leftist swine in our midst and their civilization destroying nonsense, but conservatives too. Leftists and the democrat constituency at large will oppose anything and everything endorsed by Donald Trump, including minimal border protection and enforcement and any enforcement of truly modest immigration laws and policy. And much of their opposition stems from nothing other than a visceral, reflexive rejection of anything and everything Trump utters or endorses. Because Robert F Kennedy Jr teamed up with Donald Trump, and because he rightly denounced seed oils, some lefty lunatics went on TikTok and other social media to make a spectacle of themselves while chugging whole bottles of seed oils. This is a remarkable illustration of wanting these very faculties of reason, discernment, and discrimination. It also suggests that perhaps Trump and his allies should denounce chugging bottles of Liquid Drano or Jonestown Kool-Aid laced with cyanide, for the amusement of those with more than mere inclination to the cruel and vindictive.
While leftist rabble are worse about this, conservatives are not immune from such abjectly stupid inclinations. Because democrats call for some sort of relief for the student loan crisis, far too many cling to pig-headed and foolish catechisms about how such individuals need to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” and if a person takes a debt he should pay regardless of insurmountable hardships and irrespective of the hard, plain truth that the economic opportunities and social climate required to make this reasonably possible have either diminished or disappeared altogether. Such lemmings even refuse to consider offering relief through bankruptcy law.
Leftists who champion Luigi Mangione have had similar effect in driving mainstream conservatives to defend both Brian Thompson and United Healthcare. That leftists are so enamored with Mangione is of course a peculiar spectacle indeed, given that Mangione cited “Uncle” Ted Kaczynski, hardly a left-wing figure. This coupled with conservative leanings towards considerations of law-and-order lead far too many mainstream conservatives to defend the status quo in relation to the health “insurance” racket uncritically. Perhaps most baffling of all, because some figures in the left and democratic socialist have correctly decried income gaps and staggering wealth disparity, some dumb-dumb conservative types have insisted, in mindless, knee jerk reaction, that such matters are of no import, even defending the billionaire class, as they also often regurgitate the most ridiculous dogma associated with the myth of the deserving rich. In the same way, mainstream conservatives regard unrestricted capitalism uncritically in the same knee-jerk response to leftist-tier denunciations of capitalism writ large, stupidly embracing free market capitalism without constraint or sensible regulation.
The ability to discern what contentions and arguments have merit (regardless of stereotypes or tendencies) and discriminate between what has merit and what does not is essential to any sound intellectual and ideological framework. These faculties allow an ideological and political worldview to evolve and adapt. The ability to discern where ideological enemies have merit at least in part allows the right to respond to the left in a meaningful and intelligent way, even adapting their strengths which in turn diminishes their appeal.3 Conversely, the failure to respond increases the likelihood that the left will be persuasive to a critical mass of people. Hegelian dialectics even postulate this is part of an inevitable process of thesis and antithesis conflicting and interacting, creating and blossoming into Hegelian synthesis.
These faculties also allow for the important technique of resistant reading, or resistant viewing in the instance of television, cinema, and other multi-media. Without these faculties, it would be impossible to read Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals through the prism of resistant reading, discarding his own leftist ideology while adapting those tenets, contentions, and observations that can be harnessed in the service of reactionary populism. The same application of these faculties applies to resistant viewing of films like American History X that have an obvious intended agenda but nonetheless proffer many counterarguments against that agenda with remarkable and even stunning efficiency, irrespective of intent. The film is famously like a pretentious, overrated soccer team whose arrogance is undone by a series of “own goals” in spectacular fashion. Critical viewers discern this, most notably in the infamous dinner scene, before discriminating between those elements that can advance important arguments while discarding the purported intent of the filmmakers. These same tools allow viewers to reach a very different conclusion than is intended by the filmmakers, namely that Derek was right about many things and that the multiracial experiement cannot and will not work.
Indeed, the propensity and value of resistant reading or viewing is what reveals the leftist talking about “media literacy” so absurd as to be rightly condemned as an object of abject ridicule and derision.
These same considerations allow for the celebrated separation between the artist and the person, which of course applies to matters of art and culture, i.e. actors, musicians, writers, and so on. Only the maddest delirium would compel someone to forsake the writings of Oscar Wilde due to his homosexuality. In the realm of indie-alternative music, Das Ich remain a personal favorite musical artist even though the politics of Bruno Kramm and Stefan Ackermann are nothing less than fetid lefty bullshit, the widespread adoption of which is leading Germany and Europe to ruin and racial and national suicide. The members of KMFDM have espoused various left wing platform positions that are as tiresome and predictable as they are ruinous, but this does not render the line “Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country did to you” any less quotable, salient, or relevant.
In relation to cinema, many MAGA sorts have declared a boycott of any and all films starring Robert De Niro due to his inane political rants over the past ten years or so. Admittedly, De Niro has not been a decent actor since 2000, but prior to that he played some of the most pivotal roles in some of the greatest films ever made: Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Casino, and The Deer Hunter are all indispensable classics. As a person, Sean Penn is anathema. And while a cursory review of his filmography reveals he has acted in far less great films than his reputation suggests, he has nonetheless proven to be a great American actor, from his unforgettable role as Spicolli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High to his collaborative effort with Tim Robbins in Mystic River. The proposition of foregoing these and other classic films out of animus for these and other actors as persons is a particularly jarring sort of stupidity, particularly if one can obtain and view these films by certain, undisclosed means that remove any financial contribution to the film industry,
Refining Moral and Ideological Systems and Our Understanding of Human Nature
The possession and utilization of these faculties similarly inform an elevated understanding of moral, religious, and ideological systems, as well as human nature itself. All too often in modern discourse, any assertion or observation on matters of morality or ideology is met with obfuscating tactics of varying sorts that are in dire want of these essential faculties. Consider one typical example, whereby many reflexively conflate moral conviction as mere personal preference. This is particularly relevant to condemnations of vulgar, even obscene rap music as just as one example. “These are just things Richard Parker dislikes, while other things are things he likes,”4 is a serviceable enough summary of this ridiculous argument. The first and most fatal flaw to such objections is that they fail to recognize there are three tiers to opposition or rejection of any subject at hand: mere personal preference, rejection of a proposition or precept based on reasons and evidence, and adamant, uncompromising rejection and opposition to a proposition or precept based not only on reason and evidence, but also a moral conviction arising to the level of first principles.
Endorsing or rejecting something out of personal preference often arises from these essential properties, just as even the exercise of mere personal preference utilizes the faculty of discrimination necessarily. Some preferences are just irrational, such as someone who craves prodigious quantities of tofu or holds a particularly intense preference or aversion to a particular cocktail. But very often they employ reason to some degree. As confounding as dislike for lobster may be to most, some see the texture or the characterization as “bottom feeders of the ocean” as reasons justifying this aversion. Those who prefer dark chocolate and those who prefer milk chocolate each summon their own peculiar sets of reasons for their preferences for one and disfavoring of the other. In relation to the latter two categories, these employ these faculties to the very greatest extent.
Consider once again objections to rap music, most especially vulgar, obscene rap music, as they relate to first principles. The condemnation of this wretched genre of “music,” to the extent one can call it music as the term is properly understood, derives, to a great extent, from its negrocentric nature as well its nigh universal propensity for the unspeakably vulgar, crass, and even profane if not obscene. The faculties of reason, discernment, and discrimination inform a more steadfast, impassioned opposition to rap music based on racial considerations as well as vehement opposition to the content of the lyrics which is often profane, if not obscene and even quasi-pornographic. This loathsome genre also epitomizes and accelerates the degradation and devolution of language that is particularly acute in much of the black population but has also seeped into much of mainstream popular “culture.” Such opposition is also informed by an understanding of how what is perceived to be individual choice is profoundly influenced if not determined not just by cultural milieu but other externalities including upbringing, peer pressure, and a whole host of other factors.
Indeed, these faculties are what allows the individual to pierce through received orthodoxy on race and all other matters besides. One discerns the truth about racial differences by simply looking at different races but especially those of African descent. Among many other differences, the many physiological differences in the face and skull are immediately apparent to any person who cares to observe them. A child should and can see these differences, as I did while looking at and contemplating Bill Cosby’s face and hair when The Cosby Show was a cultural phenomenon in the mid 80s. Children in America are routinely taught any number of absurdities on these matters, including that skin color is the only remarkable difference between the races. And yet even a child can observe the facial structure and hair of Bill Cosby and others of African descent and quickly discern this is not so. Nose structure most particularly, but also hair, lips and even the brow are features even a child can perceive as markedly different than any European phenotype. Discerning these obvious and apparent differences, even a child can reason that these stark differences belie the most absurd supposition that race is just skin deep.
Reason and discernment also reveal hard truths about racial differences in I.Q., disparities in violent and petty crime that are as intractable as they are destructive when compared to whites and East Asians. The case on these matters should be well familiar to most readers here, and is beyond the purview of this essay except in passing. A brief summary will note that deficiencies in I.Q. among blacks range from one to two standard deviations—or more. These deficiencies have persisted over the decades, and centuries, and have remained steadfast despite trillions squandered through Great Society programs, affirmative action, so on and so forth. A brief glance at history and demographics further reveals the same problem persists wherever in the world Africans populate, just as African peoples never developed written language, the wheel, multistory buildings, and so on.
A survey of history and human nature also reveals the importance of race, that matters of race, blood, and soil are foundational to any culture and a collective, cohesive identity that bonds a polity together. This same survey also reveals how unworkable the mad experiment of multiracialism really is. As set forth in “The Inherent Right of Race, Blood, and Soil,” and as expounded on at length in Chapter 7 of Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation, even the most cursory review of human history reveals that the multiracial experiment is doomed to failure. This survey of history reveals that practically all multicultural societies have been despotic, just as they are prone to fragment and collapse on the ethnic and racial faultlines that are woven into the fabric of these societies and civilizations. The same faculties reveal that man is inherently tribalistic in nature, and that man coalesces around common race, blood, and ancestry, which forms a common bond and sense of unity necessary for any cohesive polity to function and exist.
Both the possession and utilization of these vital faculties is also instrumental—vital, even—in piercing through the delusion and lies that define the feminist movement. Reason and discernment reveal humans as the sexually dimorphic species they are, that men, in the aggregate are stronger and taller than women: these same faculties also inform against the fallacy that extreme outliers negate general principles and trends. A summary examination of these differences reveals how foolish it is to place women in anything other than auxiliary roles in the military or on-the-beat law enforcement. Despite how open and obvious these truths are, Europe and the West nonetheless has succumbed to the irrational and destructive fever dream of feminism that posits women are generally capable of serving in combat roles, or working in mines or oil rigs.
These faculties also inform other important maxims derived from evolutionary psychology, including the vast difference in sperm count over a man’s fertility and the number of viable eggs a woman produces during her fertility. These and other considerations, combined with the discernment and understanding that a people and civilization must have a replacement rate in excess of the death rate, together inform against the mad delirium of feminism, that traditional gender roles and the division of labor between the sexes evolved for very good reasons.
These same faculties also temper and refine our understanding of various moral problems and how most if not all religious systems deal with these problems in a flawed, imperfect manner. This matter is particularly controversial for some religious readers as well as the religiously faithful at large. Religious conviction derives principally from faith, although the single greatest predicting factor determining a person’s religious faith is the time and circumstance a person is born into. People are born into religion just as they are born into a family, nationality, a mother-tongue and so on. Despite these and other considerations, many of the Christian faith derive a moral system from biblical scripture alone. This is fraught with difficulty, as the Bible is hardly a single cohesive text, but a collection of texts over a thousand-year period, written in disparate languages—ancient languages, in fact—and originating from disparate cultures and racial groups. Another problem with basing morality solely on scripture or religious faith is the conundrum as to how a creator, such as the Christian god could ever transcend morality. If God commands some atrocity, such as sacrificing one’s own son, as he did with Abraham, it cannot become a moral act on that fact alone. Much of modern humanity recognizes that hearing voices is a sign of insanity, of mental illness, but even setting that consideration aside, consider that it is any one person’s own moral compass and moral system that determines whetherzhe voice he is hearing is a saint or the devil.
In addition to these important objections, a number of precepts illustrate how these faculties of reason, discernment, and discrimination temper and refine moral systems, even in relation to and contradiction of biblical scripture and commandments. One of the Ten Commandments dictates that one must “honor your mother and father.” This, like all the commandments, is stated as a categorical imperative, that is something that is always true, without exception. But should an individual always honor his parents? The answer is clearly no. Those who have survived significant parental abuse—physical and mental abuse—should not honor their parents. Indeed, cultural norms insisting the need to reconcile in situations where it is pointless and even counterproductive to do so needlessly prolong destructive relationships that need to be severed. The same applies to those who were subject to significant parental neglect. Insistence that it appears as one of the Ten Commandments should hardly be persuasive to those individuals who properly discern this moral problem and discriminate between precepts in the Bible or other authorities that are sensible and those that are not.
The same consideration applies to the commandment against stealing. Was it wrong for Jean Valjean to steal a loaf of bread when he and Cosette were hungry? Our instincts to survival and preservation inform us that it is not. If a person or more particularly a corporate entity legally but immorally deprives someone of thousands or even tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, would it be wrong for the aggrieved party to steal an approximate value, provided he can get away with it, free of negative or adverse consequences? The answer is no.
Further consider what are perceived to be biblical commandments to forgive and even to love one’s enemies. This particular subject is especially controversial, particularly given high profile instances where Christian leaders and others have professed the need to forgive truly heinous crimes, even in the absence of remorse by the wrongdoer. There is some indication that these precepts are not biblically sound, as set forth in this reaction and commentary to “Rejecting Forgiveness.” Much of that sensible commentary and analysis centers around Luke 17:3-4, which reads in pertinent part:
3 So watch yourselves.
“If your brother or sister[a] sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. 4 Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.”
As set forth in this essay in response to “Rejecting Forgiveness,” these and other passages of the Bible have been cited to argue that Erika Kirk and others are not theologically sound, that biblical scripture requires a showing of remorse or contrition before the faithful are obliged to forgive. Supposing that a more reasonable approach to forgiveness is the correct theological interpretation, the faculties of reason inform even this more tenable theological interpretation on forgiveness cannot be part of any sensible moral system. The old chestnut “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me” is so familiar because it is so utterly sensible. Forgiving5 a person after seven iterations of the same or similar offenses or sins demonstrates to any thinking person that the contrition expressed is not genuine or at the very least cannot be trusted. And yet this passage in the bible instructs both the individual and society that the moral imperative is to continue to forgive, seemingly ad infinitum, as if this offense were the first.
As articulated in “Rejecting Forgiveness” and as further expounded in a supplemental addendum, forgiveness is not always a virtue but often a flaw and even moral failing. The flaws of forgiveness and its propensity as a moral failing is revealed through the real-world practical implications that result from this as a practice. Consider The First Law, as described in “Rejecting Forgiveness:”
[C]arte blanche forgiveness, untethered to the conditions of sincere remorse and contrition, simply invite[s] further transgressions by the wrong-doer. It is a sign of weakness, regardless of how much religious conservatives insist to the contrary. Reluctance to forgive and to reconcile demonstrates to the wrong-doer both strength and resolve. It also sets a precedent that, should there be forgiveness or reconciliation, such transgressions will not be tolerated going forward.
The essay describes this First Law—the one law—in further detail:
[F]or serious transgressions and harms, do not forgive, and if one does forgive, it should be done reluctantly, and only if the following criteria are met. First, the offender must express sincere repentance and remorse. Where applicable, there must also be some form of restitution for the harms and injuries incurred. In addition, the offender must offer assurances and guarantees that such transgressions and harms will never happen again. Finally, the person forgiving must assess the relationship and determine the relationship offers positive value, sufficient to justify the extraordinary indulgence of forgiveness in the wake of serious transgressions and wrongs.
As stated, there is much evidence that modern Christian demonstrative theatre about unconditional and automatic forgiveness, even absent an expression of remorse or asking for forgiveness, is theologically unsound. Even if this is so, the standard set forth in Luke 17:3-4 is unsuitable regardless of theological considerations and interpretations. Blindly following this standard only invites endless abuse and transgressions, and places those so inclined on a seemingly endless merry-go-round of wrongs committed against one’s person, insincere or ineffective expressions of remorse, stupidly reconciling, and then right back to where it starts with another wrong committed.
These and other moral and practical problems with certain commands and proscriptions in the bible reveal that in many—but not all—instances, morality has an objective and subjective component. In addition, both the moral and practical considerations are often particular to circumstance. Stealing is generally wrong, but particular circumstances reveal exceptions to this, such as Jean Valjean stealing bread. It is generally moral and right to honor one’s parents, but not always and indeed is immoral and self-destructive to continue to honor parents who are guilty of various serious failings, from physical or mental abuse to neglect of a certain threshold of severity. Murder is generally wrong, but even that is morally ambiguous in certain instances that require revenge to be exacted in the name of personal justice, provided one can exact revenge free of practical consequence. Examples of truly immoral acts that are immoral as a categorical imperative are rather limited, as they include rape, sadistic, wanton, or gratuitous killing and torture of others who have done no wrong and even pets and animals.6 These types of evils are always wrong in all circumstances, and can never be justified in any scenario or fact pattern.
Reason and discernment impugn other religious tenets as well, on a categorical basis, most particularly the Catholic mandate for priests and nuns to be celibate. Celibacy is not natural, except for those abnormal individuals who suffer from asexuality or hormone deficiencies that fuel the sex drive. A persuasive theory explaining slightly superior aggregate intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews is this difference in the priestly caste in Catholicism and Judaism. As Richard Lynn articulates, “There is a dysgenic effect of Roman Catholicism, in which clerical celibacy has reduced the fertility of some of the most intelligent, who have become priests and nuns.” Catholicism removed high intelligence individuals capable of performing well in seminary for centuries, whereas Judaism has long encouraged rabbis to be the most fruitful.
The theological basis for both this position by the Catholic Church and the protestant rejection of it is a matter of some theological controversy, with different passages of the bible cited both for and against. Contradictory statements in the Bible are of course another problem inherent in using the Bible as the sole basis for a moral system, as demonstrated by the celebrated adage about the devil quoting the Bible. Irrespective of any theological understanding or basis in scripture, this tenet is not only dysfunctional but dysgenic insofar that it systematically removes those with the native intellectual faculties to be part of the priestly caste from the gene pool. This practice must therefore be rejected categorically, irrespective of whether it has theological justification or not.
There are other problems with the Bible as moral authority, particularly—it should be no surprise—in the Abrahamic Old Testament. Wiping out entire peoples in a fit of genocidal wrath (which the Old Testament states God did as a matter of course), does not reconcile with modern morality, revealed through the faculties expounded on in this essay. Eternal damnation, what is in effect an unending state of pain, torture, and horror for simply not believing is also morally anathema and reveals this interpretation of God to be nothing more than a bully and sadist. As previously stated, the Bible is also silent or at least ambigous on various evils. While many on the left as well as a few on the right have noted The Bible does not seem to condemn slavery, certain passages are reasonably interpreted to endorse rape in certain circumstances.7 Finally, these faculties compel rejection of the most ridiculous and fantastical claims in the Bible, namely that many individuals lived many centuries, as found in the book of Genesis. Biblical interpretations support young earth creationism, positing that the world is only six thousnad years old must also be rejected, even if such repudiations do not quite transcend Cartesian doubt.8
These and other moral and practical flaws create a dilemma for the religious faithful, which must reconcile the nature of faith which regards the scripture as the word of God on one hand and the problems revealed through the powers of reason and discernment on the other. That is not to suggest those of a secular worldview cannot garner enlightenment and understanding from religion as philosophy, although some religions are greater than others, as some religious systems are largely without merit and should be chastised, ridiculed, and censured.
Such considerations reveal another, arguably more important flaw in religious conservatism. A wide range of important social issues—issues that have either been lost or have not been won outright as they could have been with more effective opposition—have been opposed chiefly if not exclusively on religious grounds, with little to no articulation as to the secular, rational reasons why odious, harmful policies must be resisted and rejected outright. As articulated in “This Horrid Rainbow: Defining Deviancy Down and Away,” conservative opposition to so-called gay marriage was lackluster at best, relying mostly on religious dogma, which is hardly persuasive. Few conservative commentators were armed with the intellectual framework and basis necessary to articulate the phenomenon of defining deviancy down.9 The application of this important principle revealed that legalizing so-called gay marriage and normalizing homosexuality would, axiomatically, define deviancy further downward to the most appalling outrages and vices, particularly when compounded by the normalization of pornography and other social vices. Instead of gay couples being on the fringe, society now contends with far worse behaviors and vices that were unthinkable even a few decades ago. The transgender menace comes to mind first and foremost, particularly as it not just propagated to adults but minors and children as well. Ersatz prostitution and de jure sex work by way of pornography and cam girls has become so commonplace it is banal. Polyamory has become quasi mainstream, just as certain corners of the Internet have more than a whisper about such repugnant things as incest and bestiality. These and other appalling instances of a hyper degenerate society are a result of allowing deviancy to be defined ever further downward on a whole host of vices, outrages, and social ills. This was foreseeable from the start, but so few understood these general principles let alone had the ability to articulate them in a coherent, lucid argument against gay marriage and other disasters in the culture war.
The same tendency is observed in relation to the transgender menace and radical gender theory. Too many who oppose these and other social pariahs express their opposition in religious terms, ignoring the secular reasons why these insane ideologies are untenable: namely that sex is an immutable characteristic, that a person cannot change sex—or gender—and so on and so forth. Many who have resisted compulsion to use customizable and nonsensical pronouns have based their opposition solely on faith, rather than articulate opposition on the basis of sound grammatical principles and hard, biological reality. Opposition to customizable and fantastic pronouns on the basis of secular reasons such as sound grammatical principles and recognition of biological reality are infinitely more valid than mere religious objections, just as they are infinitely more persuasive. And yet far too few who opposed transgender nuttery have attacked these lunacies along these weak points through secular reason and discourse.
For Therein Lies Salvation and Enlightenment
The examples provided are just a small selection of a seemingly endless number of matters that reveal how vital these faculties are, how they equip both the individual and society to avoid the errors inherent in dogma and groupthink. These faculties alone allow someone to not just reflexively—and often stupidly-- take the opposite position on any given matter only because a person, group, or entity is wrong, foolish, dangerous on other matters. As has been demonstrated, the possession and use of these faculties is the hidden key that unlocks the confining restraints of received orthodoxy and the myriad absurdities it has bestowed on the modern world. Conventional wisdom asserts that “racial prejudice” is irrational and the province of the uneducated, stupid, and immoral, and yet the ability to reason, discern, and discriminate allows both the individual and society to understand hidden truths about race and the ability to discern these differences. This in turn refutes the blithe assertion about racial and other forms of discrimination and the uneducated, stupid, and immoral, revealing precisely the opposite. These faculties further allow ideological and moral systems to adapt and to evolve not only to changing times and circumstances, but to appraise and either adapt or reject observations and contentions about society, civilization, and indeed the natural world. These faculties allow both an individual’s worldview and ideological and moral systems to respond and adopt to and even incorporate salient points but also reject and repudiate what is wrong, foolhardy, or destructive. Indeed, these faculties are central to a new dark enlightenment that can repudiate and dispel the destructive myths of the modern age while also revealing those errors of the past that must not be repeated. Take up these essential faculties of reason, discernment, discrimination, for therein lies the salvation of the European soul and civilization and the foundational basis for revolution in thought, ideology, and politics that must occur to save Mother Europa and her posterity.
PLEASE NOTE: the eventual success or failure of this endeavor depends in large part on reader support and collaboration. readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription in consideration of the time and labor expended to write and publish these texts. Readers who enjoy this essay are also asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor. It is also important share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.
Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.
It should be noted private correspondence proves that this author made the very same contentions before Walsh uttered them. Great minds think alike.
Former YouTube creator Way of the World did a wonderful video on this documentary, but alas there is no archive of this video.
Although this was done cynically, the reelection of Bill Clinton in the wake of Newt Gingrich’s congressional takeover in 1994 is attributed to Dick Morris’s strategy of triangulation, whereby Clinton would adopt certain strengths of the Republicans, diminishing their appeal which also allowed him to deflect and displace criticism of the Democrats on his party, rather than his bid for reelection.
A few select readers and personal contacts will rememeber a certain pundit uttering this very utterance to yours truly, rendered in this essay almost verbatim.
As the addendum sets forth in greater detail, to forgive must be interpreted as the term is properly understood, rather than the tortured definitions and doublethink that apologists on this matter routinely engage in.
Vermin excepted because of the cruel nature of some methods of pest removal that are otherwise highly effective and even necessary. This example shows how precise langauge can confine and restrict the parameters of a categorcal imperative. Vermin, such as mice and rats, are fundamentally different than pets and livestock. Qualifiers like “wanton” and '“gratuitious” are also key.
See e.g. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
On this matter, Robert Heinlein’s Job: A Comedy of Justice is highly recommended as that books informs some of this author’s criticism and skepticism of Christianty. In the novel, it is revealed that the Earth really is six thousand years old, that the fossil record, dinoasaur bones, and so on were counterfeits, planted by God to test the faith of humanity, including falsifying tells used for carbon dating. For the proposition that humanity is contending with an all-powerful Creator, such postulations cannot be disproven on a level that transcendes Cartesian doubt. But they are so unlikely and so preposterous that they simply cannot be taken seriously.
Readers familiar with this author’s work will also be familiar with this critically important concept that remains little understood by far too many. Defining deviancy down is closely related with the Durkheim Constant, which posits that any society, no matter how virtuous or profligate, will have the same quotient of what that society regards as deviant, even as each society has vastly different moral standards and mores. As a result, if deviant behavior is not properly sanctioned and deterred, society slowly loses its ability to regard such behavior as deviant, and that formerly deviant behavior then becomes mainstream. More outlandish, extreme behavior then moves up on the periphery of social behavior that is deviant, but not inconceivable. A crucial phenomenon associated with this process is that as society defines deviancy ever further downward, eventually what was once mainstream and uncontroversial becomes deviant. This is because any society and civilization must have some behavior it regards as deviant, to fill the quotient of deviant behavior envisaged by the Durkheim Constant. This is seen today insofar as opposition to interracial sex and relationships, even opposition to so-called gay marriage is now deemed as socially and morally unacceptable in much of mainstream society today. In addition to other essays discussing this vital concept, see Slouching Towards Gomorrah by Robert Bork, most particularly the introduction.
"such as the Christian god could ever transcend morality. " Bro what are you doing here. Objective morality cannot exist apart from God, and "God did bad thing" should barely even be considered an argument because of how flat it falls
Another thorough, incise banger from ol’ RP. Well done, fren. 👌🏻 I would like to have seen you interweave the necessity of using discernment with Nick Fuentes’ integral contribution to our movement. His sometimes mercurial, chameleonic nature indeed requires a careful, nuanced gaze. His addition to your otherwise prescient argument would have been key.