The Pete Quiñones Show - Pete Reads Ryszard Legutko's 'Demon in Democracy' Part 6

Episode Date: December 14, 2024

64 MinutesPG-13Pete continues a reading of a book that greatly influenced him, "The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies" by Ryszard Legutko.The Demon in DemocracyPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Antelope Hill - Promo code "peteq" for 5% off - https://antelopehillpublishing.com/FoxnSons Coffee - Promo code "peter" for 18% off - https://www.foxnsons.com/Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Ready for huge savings, we'll mark your calendars from November 28th to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye. distinctive by design they move you even before you drive the new cupra plug-in hybrid range for mentor

leon and terramar now with flexible pcp finance and trade-in boosters of up to two thousand euro search cupra and discover our latest offers cupra design that moves finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from vows wagon financial services arland limited subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. With an SSE Eartricity Generation Green Home upgrade, we can install a heat pump and solar PV so you can use your own renewable electricity to help power your heating and lower your bills.

Heat pumps draw warmth from the air outside and are over three times more efficient than traditional boilers. Upgrading has never been easier, especially with SEAI grants. So book your free consultation at SSEAARTricity.com. slash home upgrade. Registered with SEAI for home energy upgrades, grants offered are provided by the Government of Ireland through the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland.

If you want to support the show and get the episodes early and ad-free, head on over to freeman beyond the wall.com forward slash support. I want to explain something right now if you support me through Substack or Patreon. You have access to an RSS feed that you can plug into any podcast

including Apple, and you'll be able to listen to the episodes through there. If you support me through Subscrib Star, Gumroad, or on my website directly, I will send you a link where you can download the file and you can listen to it any way you wish. I really appreciate the support everyone gives me. It keeps the show going. It allows me to basically put out an episode every day now, and I'm not going to stop. I'm just going to accelerate. I think sometimes you see that I'm putting out two, even three a day.

And yeah, can't do it without you. So thank you for the support. Head on over to freeman beyond the wall.com forward slash support and do it there. Thank you. I want to welcome everyone back to part six of my reading of Rizard Lagut Goes, the demon in democracy. We are smack dab in the middle of chapter 3. And we are going to keep going.

This is part five of chapter three. There is yet another engine of politicization in liberal democracy. As I pointed out previously, the system has an inbuilt tendency to extend its rule to all areas of life, no matter how small or one would think non-political. While it is true that the liberal and democratic traditions did include a vague promise to accept free non-political self-organization of communities. and disturbed flourish, an undisturbed flourishing of social life, this acceptance never really went beyond verbal declarations. What invalidated it was a much stronger tendency, both in liberalism and in democracy, to perform a deep political restructuring of society. What actually happened was the opposite of what the doctrine professed, an atrophy of social spontaneity,

and a hyper, and a hyper, hyper, this word should be. be hypertrophy, hypertrophy of politics. I'm assuming that would be like entropy or I'm going it up real quick. Hold on. I rarely do this, but I don't remember what this word means. Process of increasing the size, density in shape of an organ or tissue, hyper. Yes, usually through cell enlargement. Cool. In the liberal tradition, communities such as family, and nation, were not believed to have independent existence, and therefore have always been looked upon with suspicion. Liberals never parted with individualistic assumptions, according to which collective entities had a secondary role, being contractual and provisional constructions.

Doctrinally, or doctrinally, nothing stood in the way of rebuilding the communities, according to liberal rules, which meant free exit and equal rights to everybody and the empowering of the state with the tools to eliminate discrimination. Such strong pressure to restructure communities and ultimately to weaken their roles does not exist in the democratic tradition, as long as the democratic mechanisms were limited to the emergence, maintenance, and transfer of power in the government. But after the liberal democracy gained strength and matured, all of that changed, one of the main objectives that the elected authority set before itself was liberalization of society. That is, harmonizing the whole of society with the political system. Homogeneity.

Well, I mean, homogeneity, but not homogeneity of your culture or your religion or your family. But according to the system. Liberal Democrats were guided by a similar assumption as the communist before them. Both disliked communities for their alleged anachronism and, for that reason, thought them because deep rooted to be the major obstacles to progress. When you're moving, when you have progress, when you're moving towards a goal, anything that's deep rooted isn't moving with you. And that's an impediment. If enough of the population becomes deep rooted, they're going to resist that progress. Both believe that one, cannot modernize society without modernizing communities, including rural areas, families,

churches, and schools. Just as communism was not possible with families adhering to the feudal patriarchal system, so liberal democracy is believed to be incomplete and unsuccessful with schools respecting traditional moral and cultural authoritarianism. The arguments are analogous. Just as a person coming from a non-communist community could not become a full-fledged dedicated and efficient citizen of the communist state, so a graduate of a traditional school will never be a faithful and reliable citizen of the liberal democratic state. I was talking with our friend Darken Lightman about this yesterday. We were talking about Catholic school and the Catholic Church. And now the Catholic Church was a rock that was unmovable for so long, despite

every system, every organization is going to have corruption. But it was unmovable. It didn't change as far as its doctrine went. And as far as its worship went, as far as its form went. And then it underwent its own Nuremberg trials in 1965. And ever since then, it has become so... it's become so a historical to its own self

that now you see a mass movement among Catholics to move back to the Latin mass and tradition. So it's just an example. It was a rock. And because progress was being made, they had to move that rock and make it roll. And when that rock rolls,

it's going to pick up, if it's rolling with progressivism, it's going to pick up hints of progressivism. seen that in basically every religious organization. Socialists and communists, let it be noted, have always embraced a notion of community, at least theoretically, to a larger extent than liberals, whom they accused of individualism that falsified human nature. However, while emphasizing the role of the community, they sternly and ruthlessly criticized, just as liberals did, existing communities with long traditions, and after seizing power, brutally destroyed them. Villages were treated with

particular a version because they were seen as the main state of tradition. Marx and Engels contemptuously wrote about the idiocy of rural life, and their successors did everything to destroy rural communities, which they regarded as strongholds of conservatism and bigotry. The communist regime systematically did their best to wipe out rural culture, while at the same time seemingly defended the peasants as victims of exploitation. This inconsistency was not an isolated case. The communists also effectively destroyed working-class communities, even though in its official program, the party proclaimed itself to be the strongest ever champion of the working class, which it honored by calling on it to become a history-making liberator of humanity.

The brutal crusade against existing rural and urban communities against farmers and workers did not prevent the communists from praising the working people of town and country, and the proletary, terms denoting social entities whose existence was rather doubtful. The communists also exhorted the proletarians of all countries to unite in the mission of carrying out a worldwide communist revolution. The proletariat was an abstract term to which no real community corresponded. It was nothing but a requirement of political strategy. The Marxist proletariat existed only so far as it fulfilled the political criteria of the revolutionary program and the only identifying feature of this construct was its political role. By itself,

the status of being a factory worker or being unemployed did not automatically make one belong to the working people of town and country or the proletariat. We see this today. The same thing in liberalism. And a lot of people who quote unquote call themselves right-wingers still decry liberalism. Oh, all the political powers in the cities. We go to the cities. Uh-huh. How's that working out? The politicization of society by liberal democracy developed somewhat differently, but had similar effects. When it became largely acknowledged that this system was destined not only to secure a smooth transfer of political power from one government to another, but to organize the entire fabric of society, communities became a natural object of first critique and then open a

attack, because they were seen as power structures of an alien, non-liberal, and non-democratic nature. Stripped of all content and all value and reduced to the political form, they were forced to accept liberal democratic rules as the only acceptable standards. Whenever they have managed to resist such standards or have been defended on non-political grounds, they provoked even louder protests. The pure liberal Democrats could not but see in them morally out, could not but see in them morally outrageous and politically dangerous anachronisms that were to open the door for dictatorship. The old communal bonds, incomprehensible to and feared by the liberal democratic mind,

were to be replaced with new modern ones. Libertarianism just replaces this with, you know, with not a liberal democratic mind, but they are seeking to, to replace the old. They will tell you, oh, you can do what you want over there. We'll do what we want over here. But that never lasts.

Ever. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive. By design. They move you. Even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon, and Teramar.

Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply.

Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings? Well, mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite LIDL items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast.

Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. You can make your home more energy efficient, lower your energy bills and increase your home's value, with an SSE-E-A-Ritricity Generation Green Home Upgrade. Our SEAI-registered One-Stop shop takes care of everything. from full home retrofits to individual upgrades, like insulation, heat pumps, and more. We'll even handle your SEAI grant applications and project manage the works, so you can sit back and relax.

Learn more at sseartricity.com slash home upgrade. Grants offered are provided by the Government of Ireland through the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. Now, the feminist ideology, for example, proclaimed that women are united by a special feeling of togetherness and solidarity, which they, unsurprisingly, called a bonds of sisterhood. It does not require much prospectiveness to see that the woman thus defined were a close equivalent of Marx's proletariat. Like the proletariat, the woman's sisters were believed to form an international, or rather transnational political group whose primary reason of being is empowerment of their entire sex and liberation of all possible chains imposed on them by history and by men. By default, anything that has liber in it,

starts with Lieber or is promoting Lieber. It's not promoting Lieber. They will tell you. I mean, who promoting Lieber is telling you that is talking about men's roles and women's roles? That's anathemat of them. Just as a proletariat, women, women, is an abstract concept that does not denote any actual existing community, but only an imagined collective made

made an object of political worship among feminist organizations and their allies. But the paradox is that the feminist woman, being a figment of political imagination, is considered by the feminist to be a proper woman, a woman in a strict sense, the truest woman. Just as for communists, the Marxist proletariat was the truest representative of the working class. By the same token, a real woman living in a real society, like a real worker living in a real society, is politically not to be trusted because she deviates too much from the political model. In fact, a non-feminist woman is not a woman at all. Just as a non-communist worker was not really a proletarian.

A woman, she can do anything a man can do. There are other cases of bringing into alleged existence certain groups by giving them from above, as it were, a political identity. Probably the most striking examples are homosexuals who, by a political, Theat gained a status of a transnational movement fighting for power and political influence. Even some ethnic groups today, only insofar as they are seen by their assigned political role as fighters for group entitlements. Multiculturalism and idea that has become extremely popular in recent decades is nothing more than a program to build the society in which there exists not many cultures, but many political identities attached to many real, or more often,

imagined collectives. Multiculturalism encourages what is today called identity politics. This term may be misleading. It has little to do with the defense of the rich fabric of societies and their historically constituted communities, but should be rather seen as a program of politicization of certain groups that could radically change the fabric of society. One would think that such a program is congruent with the logic of democracy, which, after all, is based on the competition. among groups struggling for power. This argument is partly correct and partly fallacious. It is correct so far as it actually points to today's persistent tendency to turn social groups into something like political parties, which, once they become parties, lose their communal character.

Women, homosexuals, Muslims, ethnic groups are being perceived as and transformed into quasi-parties, organized from above by the political or ideological leadership and not possessing any characteristics, possessing other characteristics than resulting from the struggle of power against other groups and no other identity than that provided by this leadership, allowing no ideological dissent. What's he saying? All of these special interest groups are puppeted from above. Who started the NAACP? Do I need to say it?

Go look it up. Whoever is not a member of this quasi party, even though for some reason, be it sex, birth, or color, he should be included, but stays outside its boundaries or sometimes even opposes it is the enemy, a sellout, and a traitor. A black American who condemns the absurdity of African-Americanism, regardless of his virtues and achievements, is considered as much a traitor to his own race. A woman who rejects feminism for its crude and destructive ideological content is a traitor to the sisterhood. This argument is also wrong in another respect. Obviously, communities are not parties, and a society cannot be divided, like a democratically elected parliament, into parties playing a political game and vying for power.

The word multiculturalism still used today, despite numerous criticisms and ridicule, represents yet another hoax that liberal democracy created and that turned out to be, super surprisingly effective. Both parts of the word misrepresent reality. Multiculturalism is not about culture, but about politics. In fact, they should be pollet, as in Politburo, rather than culture and mono, rather than multi. Many ingredients of the multicultural cake are not ingredients anymore, but have become the cake itself. Feminism is not the culture of feminists or feminist parties or women, but the political platform espoused by governments, the European Union, and many international institutions. The ideology of homosexuality is no longer in the hands of homosexual activists and their organizations, but is a major item in national and global agendas.

A nation that would dare to entertain any misgivings in this regard, or, for example, include wording in its constitution, as was recently done by the Hungarians, that marriage is a union between a man and a woman would be subjected to almost worldwide condemnation expressed in the rhetoric of rage and hatred. The acquisition of all these catchphrases by the mainstream resulted in, paradoxically, further homogenization of the modern world, the most effectively executed because concealed behind the shamelessly fraudulent rhetoric of cultural diversity. Hence, multiculturalism does not avert the progressive politicization of liberal democracies, nor stop the herd-like proclivity of a liberal democratic demos. In fact, multiculturalism pushes them to a new level. Never before in human history

did we see a similar phenomenon when millions of people, indistinguishable from each other, using the same patterns of thinking, politically homogenous and oblivious to any other way of viewing the political world except according to the Orthodox liberal democratic version, are not only convinced of their own individual and group differences and proclaim the unchallenged superiority of pluralism, but also want to enforce the same simplistic and tediously predictable orthodoxy on the entire world as the ultimate embodiment of the idea of multiplicity. All this undermines and weakens communities, their role in their cohesion, and it is the communities that are the major carriers and strongholds of diversity.

They're not the only victims. Politization, which took over culture, has also considerable havoc in the law, making it a particularly effective tool of political or, in fact, partisan power. Again, an analogy with communism is inescapable. Naturally, under communism, the degree of arbitrariness and control of the courts by the ruling party were much stronger, but the approach to the law in liberal democracy and the use of law by the liberal democratic mainstream place closer to rather than farther

from communism. Today's mainstream, like the Erswell Communist Ruling Class, takes over the mechanisms for creating laws and regards it as its exclusive property to be used for its own goals. The modern state openly, even proudly carries out the policy of social engineering, intervening deeply in the lives of communities while enjoying total impunity, which is guaranteed by its control of lawmaking and law enforcement procedures. There was, Monica Perez shared with me a video. Ah, man, this must have been back in 2019 or so.

And it was at the Chatham House, and it was the head of the CFR. I can't remember what the hell his name is. Richard Bass, I think it was at the time. Maybe he still is. I haven't looked in on that in a long time. And they were talking about how they didn't even worry about. the churches in the United States anymore, that they basically owned them all.

They had quote-unquote partnerships with them. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs. When the doors open, the deals go fast.

Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of them. November. Little more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive. By design. They move you. Even before you drive.

The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Cooper. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria.

Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Making your home more energy efficient is now more affordable than ever with an SSE Artricity Generation Green Home upgrade. Get up to 37,250 euro in SEAI grants, deducted up front and our one-stop shop manages your whole grant application for you. We can also help you access the Home Energy Upgrade Loan scheme. Book your free consultation today at sseatercity.com slash home upgrade. Grants offered are provided by the Government of Ireland through the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland.

Terms and conditions apply to the Home Energy Upgrade loan. A markedly important function of the law to act as a barrier to political hubris was lost or significantly weakened. Instead, the law has become a sword against the unresponsiveness and sometimes resistance of society to the policy of aggressive social restructuring that is euphemistically called modernization. The law in liberal democracy, as under communism, is no longer blind. No longer can one envision it as blindfolded goddess holding the scales to determine guilt and punishment. It is now, as it were as it was under communism, one of the engines it transforms the present into the future and the backwards into the progressive.

The law is expected to be endowed with an accurate picture of what is going to, happen in the future so that it can adjudicate today what will certainly happen tomorrow. Naturally, politics and law and liberal democracies are fickle, just as the reaction of demos had always been unpredictable. But there are exceptions to this. Politics and law are not blind, for instance, to the fact that not all groups deserve support and not all should enjoy the approval of the mainstream, its laws and its courts. In liberal democracy, as under communism, there are those who deserve special protection.

and are therefore honored with special privileges. To this selected circle belong groups, a group of, officially anointed as oppressed. The status of being oppressed results from the ideological orthodoxy. Bestowing it on this or that group is a purely political decision with no regard to reality. Today, for example, homosexual groups have gained enormous privileges precisely because they have been identified as an oppressed group.

the status granted to them for as long as liberal democracy reigns. This somewhat bizarre warmth towards homosexuals is probably fueled by a persistent attempt to deconstruct the family, the institution to which the left has from the very beginning felt a singular hostility. Remember, the book The Authoritarian Personality identifies strong central families as a precursor to fascism. Muslims are also privileged to some extent, but for a different, reason, partly because of the real fear they aroused in liberal Democrats, partly for doctrinal

reasons, because granting them privileged status is believed to be the living proof of the viability of multiculturalist ideology, and partly as an exercise in moral masochism as the attitude towards Muslims is sometimes regarded as a test, undoubtedly not an easy one, of liberal tolerance and open-mindedness. But there are also less fortunate groups not privileged and often treated harshly, such as Christians, whom the liberal democratic legislatures and courts clearly dislike. Chapter 3 Part 6. Democratic politicization, being similar to communist politicization, differs from it in one important aspect. In democracy, the focus is primarily on the cooperation among groups, a problem virtually

non-existent under communism in which, as it was claimed, conflict ceased to exist, and therefore, a political system of cooperation was no longer necessary. Liberal democracy, on the other hand, makes cooperation a paramount category and considers itself unquestionably superior in that respect to any other system on the argument, irrefutable in its abstract formulation, that cooperation is superior to aggression and war. We do not have unceasing wars, to be sure, but this does not automatically make liberal democratic politics a model of cooperation, nor is it, you. true that the so-called politics of emancipation, recognition, and empowerment of groups is

permeated by the spirit of dialogue, debate, and mutual respect. These expressions are, of course, well-reeded in today's discourse, nearly as deeply as the building of socialism or a moral political unity of the nation, or integral parts of the language of communism. But it does not require much effort to see that the dialogue in liberal democracy is of a peculiar kind, because its aim is to maintain the domination of the mainstream and not to undermine it. A deliberation is believed to make sense only if the mainstream orthodoxy is sure to win politically. Yeah, what's that? I guess Chomsky said, you limit debate to a box, but you encourage vigorous debate

inside that box? Anything outside that box is off-limits? Today's dialogue, politics, are a pure form of the right-is-mite politics, cleverly concealed by the ostentatiously vacuous rhetoric of all-inclusiveness. The belief that the liberal democratic system has this wonderful cooperative nature, no matter that practice often frustrates it, is not without consequence. Once a belief is taken to heart, it imposes a particular way of thinking. If politics means a mutually respective cooperation of parties and the opposite is a conflict that leads to discrimination, unjust domination, and in the last instance, war, then the establishment of cooperation becomes a political imperative. It is certainly not enough to collaborate at the parliamentary and

government levels. Cooperative politics should cover virtually all areas of public life because everywhere the alternative to cooperation is discrimination, unjust domination, and war. Everywhere there are groups being denied their rights and therefore struggling for empowerment, and more importantly, everywhere there are women, homosexuals, Muslims, gypsies, blacks, and representatives of other groups whom liberal democracy give the status of political quasi-parties, and upon whom it is thrust the duty of settling scores with the alleged oppressors. Thus, everywhere we encounter circumstances that make us aware, for the need for cooperation and of the securing the conditions that make it possible.

The success in establishing these conditions at the legislative, governmental, and international levels depends in no small measure, as has been emphatically pointed out, on success in creating such conditions at lower levels. If no dialogue, no tolerance, or no respect for equal rights exists in everything that constitutes a society, even at small and seemingly non-political elements, then all agreements to cooperate politically at upper levels lose their effectiveness. If there is no acceptance of the rights of women and homosexuals in everyday life and small neighborhoods, then general rules in the Constitution that equate men and women, homosexuals, and heterosexuals, are empty. That equate men and women, homosexuals, and heterosexuals,

are empty declarations. Effective politics becomes thus a comprehensive task because the preconditions on which cooperation is dependent are not only numerous, but constantly growing in number. Literature, art, education, family, liturgy, the Bible, traditions, idea, entertainment, children's toys, all can be deemed conducive's cooperation or strengthening intolerance, discrimination, and domination. All contain sentences, ideas, topics, and images that are difficult to accept by some groups, and that may be interpreted as reflecting negative perception of these groups. Such negative perceptions called prejudices undermine these group status, status, and consequently their political position in a democratic society. If in families,

it is the father who makes the major decisions, then such a power structure at a small social unit generates negative stereotypes that undermine the position of women in the family, which, multiplied by the appropriate number of cases, undermines the position of women in society at large, and prevents them from cooperating on an equal footing with men. If a book, for example, Laoslav Reimantz, the Promised Land, presents a picture of capitalists in which their ways of doing business are correlated with cultural ethnic characteristics, Polish, Jewish, or German, some may consider this portrayal to promote anti-Polish, anti-Jewish, and anti-German stereotypes, which in turn, multiplied by the appropriate number of readers

and lessons of school contributes to serious distortions of cooperation among Polish, Jewish, and German communities in the real world. If people tell faggot jokes, then the result, when multiplied by the appropriate number of situations,

is a discrimination that intentionally marginalizes the cooperation process for homosexuals as a group. So all of this has to be eliminated. Even at the smallest, that's why a woman in the home, even a woman who's working in the home has to have equal standing with her husband because all of this can multiply.

Another woman can see that. Faggot jokes can start multiple. All of these things have to be stopped dead in their tracks. This explains the rise of the infamous phenomenon of political correctness. There's nothing mysterious about it. It is simply a practical consequence of the view that the duty of citizens of the liberal democratic society is to participate in the great collective enterprise where everyone cooperates with everyone else at all levels and under all circumstances. If we look at three above examples, family life, books content, and popular jokes, we can see that from politically correct perspective, they are no longer irrelevant trivialities. they illustrate what is absolutely crucial for the entire logic of liberal democracy.

Because the logic of this system turns on dialogue, respect, equal rights, openness, and tolerance, everything is by definition political. And nothing that relates, however remotely, to these notions is trivial, minor, or irrelevant. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design. They move you. even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range

for Mentor, Leon and Teramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited subject to lending criteria.

Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items, all reduced to clear.

From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Little more to value With an SSEE Eartricity Generation Green Home upgrade

We can install a heat pump and solar PV So you can use your own renewable electricity To help power your heating and lower your bills Heat pumps draw warmth from the air outside And are over three times more efficient Than traditional boilers Upgrading has never been easier Especially with SEAI grants

So book your free consultation at sseaartricity.com slash home upgrade Registered with SEAI for home energy upgrades Grants offered are provided by the government of Ireland through the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. A slight offense of remark must always be regarded as a manifestation of mortal sin. What seems a barely visible mark on the surface conceals underneath swirling currents of hatred, intolerance, racism, and hegemony.

The body responsible for the ensuring that these terrible things do not surface is the state, with all the instruments at its disposal. It is the state that should incessantly work to impose and improve cooperation policies by removing all real and potential barriers, creating a favorable legal environment, and reshaping public space and education in such a way that the people's minds internalize the rule of politically correct thinking. If you haven't seen that or noticed that in the last four years,

you're not paying attention. This also raises the question as to whether calling what liberal democracy, he's proving liberal democracy is here, communism or Marxism, whether that's legitimate. It's obviously close, but it's not the same thing. So if you insist on using this boomer retard term of calling everything you don't like Marxism or communism, well, you're wrong. Communism and Marxism are something historic. They mean something. And if you are not if you don't understand what dialectical materialism is, stop using words,

stop using terms you don't understand. It's liberal democracy. It's all it is. Now you can stop listening to James Lindsay and burn his books. But do whatever you want with them, I don't care. Such undertaking carries a high price. When the state takes over responsibility for the rules of cooperation and their enforcement on all layers of society,

there will be no limits to its interference in people's lives. The laws that enacts must of necessity be increasingly more detailed than intrusive because what threatens those rules and has to be curtailed is believed to be hidden deeply in social practices and human consciousness. You will actually hear this when I did the reading of Israel, the psychopathic nation, which is just basically a paper that quotes Jewish philosophers over and over again, they will say that anti-Semitism has basically taken over human consciousness,

that it's a disease that's been passed down for 2,000 years. Yeah, do you believe that? Or is it just jealousy? The slippery slope argument so often used by liberals is particularly pertinent here. The logic of liberalism is that whatever seems to be the most obviously non-political sooner or later will become political. The logic of democracy, with its notions of participation, inclusion, and representation only strengthened this tendency. Language was the first to go down this road, initially thought of as potentially descriptive

and neutral. It soon came to be seen as the major political weapon used by oppressors against the oppressed. Thus, the faggot jokes are not harmless anecdotes, sometimes funny and sometimes not. The mere fact of using the word faggot in speech, public or private, is an act of participation in the exclusion of homosexuals from the democratic cooperation. But because speech is just an expression of thoughts, emotions, and deeply hidden aversions, it must soon become obvious that the actual sources of evil, intolerance, discrimination, domination, lie dormant in people's minds, often deposited in their semi-conscious layers, uncontrolled and unnoticed, these shape our language, and consequently are bad habits and negative predilections. These habits and predilections lead to discriminatory laws and authoritarian politics and extreme cases at the very bottom of this slippery slope to prosecution, the stocks, torture,

and genocide. But at the beginning, at the very top, it is thought with which it all began, a thought crime, a mental sin that constitutes the first act of disobedience to holy political principles. Whoever seeks the remedy must start with the political therapy of people's minds. I was talking about the slippery slope yesterday, and I said that I thought a better, like thinking about a rolling rock. A rock, a stone, a gigantic stone, should be in place. It should be something that's foundational, grounded. But once you start moving it, Now it starts picking up. And usually the only way you can move it is to roll it.

Well, now it's starting to pick things up. Now it's starting to wear away, become different. That's how it happens. When you have something that's a bedrock and you abandon it, well, what's going to happen? That's how you get the slippery slope. Because now you've something. that was not meant to be moved, was not meant to be changed, is being changed. And once something has changed, well, what's the big deal?

It's changes some more. Communism had a comparably strong sense of political evil originating, as in liberal democracy, from an internal act of treason and a profound inability to accept the communist message. But the evil could be disarmed or even turned to good once the internal act of treason was disowned and the mind reborn and reformed, accepted without reservations the communist message. The communist state was not oblivious to this possibility, and its functionaries offered various therapeutic programs to help the sinners to abandon bad habits and cleanse themselves with bad thoughts. Once their consciousness was raised, as it was then called, they could join good comrades in the march

toward the happy future of communism. This, incredible as it may seem, found its continuation in liberal democracy. Even the expression raising consciousness was retained, despite its sinister undertone denoting essentially comparable practices of cleansing people's minds of politically subversive mental predilections. Having gone through consciousness raising therapy, people could, for instance, rid their minds of sexist thoughts and developed disgust for faggot jokes. America, to my knowledge, was the first liberal democratic country to create an some cases, impose such therapies on people with unruly minds, but the method found zealous imitators elsewhere, including in Eastern Europe. We have already had several enthusiastic reports of some

Polish professors who, during their stay at American universities, were shipped after having sinned to such a training to have their awareness of a feminist perspective raised. Former patients equipped with new minds, now politically correct because free from thought crimes, will probably be the first to be asked to pilot similar programs in their native country, in which, as we are constantly reminded by our intellectual pundits, raising the awareness of feminism, homosexuality, and race is of critical importance. The government is not the only agent that is supposed to oversee the rules of cooperation and fight against all the non-collaborative groups. Actually, this responsibility rests on everyone's shoulders, and everyone is responsible for tracking what is wrong and implementing what is

right. In this respect, liberal democracy has achieved at least as much as communism and perhaps even more. Real socialism used coercion in the most palatable sense of the word. The authorities treated acts of disobedience with brutality and the bloody birth of the system was not without effect on the behavior of the next generation. In a liberal democracy, a vast part of this process occurs spontaneously, and the legal and political coercion is to some extent a response to public demand and not an arbitrary act of violence against society. Hence the large crowds of individuals who are willing, like some contemporary Pavkamozorovs,

to track down dissonant words, actions, and intentions in their immediate vicinity. Their Tartif-like minds poison the society and other minds. In liberal democracy, as in communism, a significant role in the task of tracking is assigned to intellectuals who, as the most knowledgeable and enlightened, are best suited for such a task, which is, first to identify a criminal thought and then to warn against a slippery slope that leads from this thought to political domination.

Sometimes this path is not perceptible to a simple mind. It may start, for example, with a non-inclusive use of a personal pronoun. He instead of he or she, or better, she or he, or still better, she all the time. This use may be indeed a result of simple educational negligence in kindergarten, but may sometimes end with the rape of a woman. An intellectual sharp eye and perceptiveness will always recognize what is politically dangerous. A sentence, a metaphor, a proverb, an incorrect text on the bulletin board, a work of fiction, a seemingly little thing and yet shamelessly undermining the liberal democratic rules. And because liberal democracy, like communism, produce large numbers of lumpen intellectuals,

there is no shortage of people who ecstatically become involved in tracking disloyalty and fostering a new orthodoxy. It happens that both systems never suffer from a shortage of people willing, often without being asked, to survey the political purity in communities, institutions, groups, and all types of social behavior. Lumpin intellectuals will be added to my vocabulary. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back.

We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November Lidl, more to value

You catch them in the corner of your eye Distinctive By design They move you Even before you drive The new Cooper plugin hybrid range For Mentor, Leon and Terramar Now with flexible PCP

Finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro Search Coopera and discover our latest offers Coopera Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement

from Volkswagen Financial Services, Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. With an SSE Earticity Generation Green Home upgrade, we can install a heat pump and solar PV so you can use your own renewable electricity

to help power your heating and lower your bills. Heat pumps draw warmth from the air outside and are over three times more efficient than traditional boiler. upgrading has never been easier, especially with SEAI grants. So book your free consultation at sseatercity.com slash home upgrade. Registered with SEAI for home energy upgrades, grants offered are provided by the government of Ireland through the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland.

The atmosphere of the systems produces particularly conducive to endangering, engendering, a certain type of mentality, that of a moralist, a commissar, and an informer rolled into one. In one sense, this person may think that he performs something particularly valuable to humanity. In another, the situation helps him to develop a sense of power, otherwise unavailable to him. And in a third, he often cannot resist the temptation to indulge in a low desire to harm others with impunity. For this reason, tracking opposition and defending orthodoxy turned out to be so attractive that more and more people failed to resist. In both communism and liberal democracy, we encounter the same peculiarity. What is incidental is treated as a systemic problem, which really means that whatever happens is systemic and nothing is incidental to the system.

It thus becomes natural for true liberal Democrats, as it was for true communists, to harass their colleagues because of a casual remark, or of a lack of vigilance, or an improper joke, making the lives of unruly individuals, difficult by constantly admonishing and creating further regulations and stricter laws. By doing so, the self-proclaimed guardians of purity see themselves as carrying on their shoulders the responsibility for the future of liberal democracy worldwide. If not for their effort and dedication, this great political enterprise they think would become fouled and then perish the thought. As in any system built on violence and lies in communism, this somewhat paradoxical belief

in both invincibility and vulnerability could be easily explained. It was felt that a few true thoughts and ideas, once they became publicly acknowledged as true, would lay bare the false head of the entire system and eventually tear it down. Even the most self-mistified builders of this structure knew that the truth was their most powerful enemy. And, to speak not entirely metaphorically, it was the truth that tore it down. In a liberal democracy, such a view seems absurd because the system, system is stable, and the principle of freedom of speech is included in the Constitution. But those who hunt for political incorrectness and foster political correctness,

believe or perhaps subconsciously assume that the stability is not as great as naively thought, nor the freedom of speech is unproblematic as people of ill will consider it to be. Give me a second. I need to clear my nose. Sorry, something is causing allergies. Under communism, the fact that somebody published a poem, a story, a book in an uncensored illegal circulation, or a politically dubious cartoon in a local newspaper, put the entire Politburo on the alert, which sometimes made the heads, make the heads roll. Such seemingly small incidents were considered a major problem that would require massive

counteractions, such as carefully organized demonstrations of workers denouncing the perpetrators or official condemnations by the Association of Writers, Artists, actors and teachers. Just one incorrect word or one word too many was enough to make the creator lose his job or be blacklisted. In a liberal democracy, seemingly everything is permissible, but politically incorrect events immediately trigger an avalanche reaction of resistance. Intellectuals protests, journalists on TV twist their faces and moral indignation, comedians used the whip of satire and the lump in intelligentsia, delighted with all their indignation, whistle, heckle, stomp their feet, and demand exemplary punishment of the

perpetrators. A delusion to which the trackers of traitors to liberal democracy readily succumb is their belief that they are a brave, small group struggling dauntlessly against an overwhelming enemy. And again, an analogy to communism seems irresistible. Under communism, people were made to believe that they were involved in a never-ending fight against the enemy. This enemy had various faces and identities, all frighteningly powerful, international imperialism, the CIA, allied reactionary, domestic, and foreign forces supported by millions of dollars from Washington, London and Paris. In a liberal democracy, the fight also goes on, and the enemy two represents the dark forces.

always reviving despite a series of victories by the forces of light, patriarchy, white supremacy, racism, nationalism, and other terrible things said to have millions of supporters and a network of speech and cultural habits established over the centuries. The warriors of political correctness think of themselves in the category of the struggle between David and Goliath. Nothing can be further from the truth. They belong to the mainstream, having all instruments of power at their disposal.

On their side are the courts, both national, international, the UN, and its agencies to European Union with all its institutions, countless media, universities, and public opinion. I'll add social media, corporations, all that. The illusion they cherish of being a brave minority heroically facing the whole world, false as it is, gives them nevertheless a strange sense of comfort. They feel absolutely safe, being equipped with the most powerful political tools in today's world. but at the same time priding themselves on their courage and decency, which are more formidable, which are more formidable the more awesome the image of the enemy becomes. Chapter 3 Part 7.

The stifling intrusiveness of liberal democracy should not come to us as a surprise once we remember its inner dialectic. Liberalism, as we recall, created a private man and wanted to deliver the vast majority of human race from the burden, unnatural and unnecessary as the liberal's thought of politics. It succeeded in the first and failed in the second. Liberalism indeed made people private on an unprecedented scale, yet these people, having discovered the importance of their privacy,

did not renounce politics. Hence, when a liberal democratic man becomes involved in political activities, it was natural that he imbued them with what he regarded to be closest to him, what he lived for, and breathed, and what provided him with the reason for being. But these were matters so far regarded as private. The liberal Democratic man politicized his privacy, perhaps his main contributions to the change in thinking about politics.

He politicized marriage, family relations, communal life, language. In this, he resembled his communist comrade. But his greatest success in this regard, unmatched so far by any competitor, was to politicize that area that seemed to be the most private of all private, the most intimate of all thing, intimate, and thus the least appropriate to political meddling, the realm of sex. Obviously, the intentions to politicize sex had appeared before in radical programs aimed at fundamental transformation of society, including the destruction of

its traditional institutions. Those radicals and revolutionaries who were looking for a better foundation for a better society knew very well that their program must fail unless they managed to do something with the family. This institution was always considered, quite understandably, to be the most serious obstacle to the task of building a new society. When Plato and the Republic raised the question of a perfect political power elite, he naturally related it to the problem of family. He argued that a member of such a true elite should be free from any family bonds because these would weaken his dedication to work for the state. And it was this state that he should regard to his sole object of quasi-familial devotion. To this, Plato added a singular politics of sex,

whose distribution was, on the one hand, give the members of the elite an opportunity to satisfy their sexual needs, and on the other side, strengthen the state. In modern times, the family, while not particularly respected by philosophers of liberal and democratic persuasions, was not an object of systematic attack. Hobbs, Locke, and Rousseau certainly did not fight against it with the use of arguments referring to sex and sexual instinct. The communists were far more outspoken in this regard. They willingly raised sex arguments to attack the monogamous marriage as an institution. Friedrich Engels, and his work on the family spoke sharply about the existing institution of marriage, which he compared to prostitution, the wife selling herself upon entering

the marriage and the husband buying extramarital pleasures. In his scattered comments, Engels drew a picture of what he considered a good family. The marriage was a marriage would last only as long as the spouses loved and were physically attracted to each other. It all sounded disarmingly naive, even sentimental, with no special insight into human nature or the sense of the institution itself. The idea of free love between adults, completely unrelated to marriage, gained some notoriety in the late 18th century and was practiced with little success by some liberally-minded eccentric. It played a more prominent role in the writings of certain communists who assume that the communist revolution would inevitably entail a dramatic change in sexual

moors. Indeed, after the October Revolution in 1917, sexual life was set free, with sadly predictable results. Later, this policy was abandoned, mainly because the communist leaders started to perceive it as a whim of the intelligentsia, and militant communism found other fields for action, much more important from the point of view of the revolution. Despite the occasional tide changes, divorce and and abortion ultimately became the leading achievements of the new political system, and in this regard, communism was far ahead of the liberal West. Gee, all the Lieber's, just following right along. For the great sexual revolution, the West had to wait until the 60s of the 20th century.

What happened then was, in terms of scope and content, far more radical than anything in the past. its consequences, unpreicted during the revolution itself, continue to unfold themselves before our eyes even today, and will most likely continue in the years to come. The revolution combined two things. First, it repeated the old communist plan to overthrow the repressive power structures, including marriage and family. This time, however, and that was what made it different from previous revolutions, its slogans of sexual liberation mobilized millions of people, and it had at its disposal previous. unheard of instruments of ideological warfare, notably mass culture and mass media. The novelty was the clarity of the message. Sex was said to be the most powerful element of human nature and yet still enslaved by oppressive structures from within and from without. This emphasis on sex came probably from Freudianism, which had a particularly strong impact on

America, but also a considerable sway in Europe. The new crusaders of sexual liberation simplified Freud's used and widely distributed them as politically palatable, a politically palatable, rather carefree vision. The message that reached the millions was that human sexual impulses had been so far suppressed that the suppression had been deleterious, and that once sex was liberated, life would become immeasurably nicer. The concept received its revolutionary form from Herbert Marcus, who back in the 1950s, came up with a theory, a mixture of Freudianism and Marxism, explaining how to combine sexual liberation with a political struggle to overthrow the system. His argument was roughly composed of two elements. The first, a rather diabolical image of the modern capitalist world, able to repel and

neutralize all the revolutionary movements of change. The second, an interpretation of sex is the only power in man in society, inherently subversive and yet uncontrolled by the powers that be. Hence, the proclamation of sexual liberation was a call to political collective action, and sex itself became the paramount political weapon. For some time, this diagnosis remained unnoticed and was considered by many to be quite silly. Why would sexual promiscuity be a tool of political struggle? The very idea seemed unworthy of intellectual attention. However, after several years, this theory gained great popularity, especially, as it's fairly easy to understand, among young people, including the rebellious students on college, on university campuses. But there was another side

to the sexual revolution, alongside the Marxian Freudianism that was rarely indicated. The sexual revolution was a culmination of growing consumerism in Western societies, which in turn stemmed from the unprecedented prosperity and security that these societies had managed to achieve. Until the 1960s, the growing number of easily available goods did not include sex. This was regulated by existing social practices, as well as by old moral precepts, going back to classical ethics. This growing consumerism tended to weaken both social practices and moral precepts and replace them with far less demanding and seemingly more natural criteria of a utilitarian kind, pleasure being the principal yardstick to measure the value of human goals.

The impressive efficiency of modern civilization accustomed people to expect that their actions would be instantly gratified. Whatever delayed or hindered this gratification was considered unnatural, repressive, incomprehensible, and in the long run, unacceptable. When we look at this mental change from the perspective of the history of philosophy, we can see it in the final, though, thank God, not yet closed, phase of a long process. From the beginning, pleasure was considered by philosophers to be an important part of the human experience, also having a complicated but powerful relation to morality. For 25 centuries, the nature of this relationship had been the subject of an engaging and often

illuminating debate. The debate unavoidably occasioned the use of other concepts, not identical to that of pleasure, but somehow related to it. Happiness, fulfillment, flourishing, and a few others. At the end of the day, pleasure finally outclassed its rivals. Perhaps the most momentous aspect of this victory was that the concept of happiness in classical ethics considered one of the central categories fell out of use and was eventually equated quite erroneously with pleasure. Originally, happiness was a quantity that one could attribute to an entire life, not to its episodes or moments. Under no circumstances could one reduce it to pleasure, a short and transient experience. Pursuing happiness meant planning one's entire life so that it had its own moral consistency and internal harmony,

both achieved through the inculcation of virtues. Bringing pleasure to the center of life engendered a different image of human nature. Human beings, in this view, no longer think of themselves in terms of the whole of their existence, but in terms of moments and episodes. It could not be otherwise because there is no such thing as the pleasure of life. One can talk about pleasures and pleasant moments that happen in life, and one can even encourage people to collect their pleasures and pleasant moments. The more, the better. But the latter strategy, even if successful, does not predetermine whether this or that particular life at its entirety, is or is not happy.

It may have many pleasant moments, but these do not automatically translate themselves until a unifying moral scenario, nor make a life fulfilled. To have a fulfilling life is it is necessary to give it a durable, inherent meaning that may very well coexist with having many pleasant moments,

but is in no way a result of these moments, no matter how many. One can, of course, construe one's life as a series of episodes, but this must, to a greater or lesser degree, undermine the sense of continuity of existence in more extreme cases leading to different identifications. Each associated with a different episode. But even if our lives are episodic, ourselves are not.

Hence, the life dedicated to the accumulation of pleasures, but lacking an internal unity, will most likely not be a happy life because a human being cannot renounce his unity without negative consequences. The sexual revolution is arguably the most extreme manifestation of the episodic nature of man. To surrender one's life to sexual pleasure meant once and for all abandoning any attempt to gives one existence a unifying meaning. This pleasure is, like no other, related to what is short-lived and ephemeral. Many wise men in the history of European thought consistently warned against the effects of the uncontrolled reign of pleasures over human life. In classical ethics, pleasures were feared.

because they not only do not have a self-mitigating mechanism, but are likely, when unchecked, to do away with external mitigating measures. These warnings were not treated with the seriousness they deserve by modern utilitarians. With the growth of consumerism, this fear evaporated. As a new rhetoric of sexual liberation declared the existing limitations on sex consumption unacceptable, the time finally came to push the cult of pleasure to a new low. Free sex was not only pleasure, it also stood for spontaneity against soulless technology and productivity. It stood for peace and universal harmony with no constraints, no domination, no discrimination. These musings

illustrated, as it is easy to see, an old dream, somewhat modified to new realities of the advent of the era free of politics where individual people would enjoy individual pleasures, unmolested by the state and its institutions. The difference was that instead of trading, gardening, fishing, reading books, and leading family life, these old dreams lost their charms. Being a private man meant now primarily indulging in sexual pleasures occasionally enhanced with narcotic trips. But as before, what was intended as a plan to cleanse the world of politics ushered in politicization on a scale unprecedented in liberal democratic societies. Millions of people were mobilized to act for the better world, and one wave of sexual liberation followed another.

Women, homosexuals, lesbians, polygamous, advocates of sexual communes, all wanted to have their claims recognized and to contribute to the making of a new society. Sex became the new weapon to destroy the old order and the instruments to forge a new one. Having been elevated to such a high position, it began to penetrate all spheres of public life. And a pun intended, education, art, culture, commerce. language. The sexual utopia did not come about, but sex was politicized and became a part of the official agenda of the state and its institutions. The rebels, without a moment's hesitation, joined the ranks of the political structures and became their functionaries. The consequences of all

this, however, were not necessarily quite those that were planned. Once institutionalized absorbed by the system, sexual freedom permeated law, customs, social practices, schools, educational programs, and public discourse. Since then, the issue of human sexuality, abortion, homosexuality, and so-called reproductive rights have been exposed by the mainstream and begun to be the basic identification marks in liberal democratic politics. Today they are supported by the United Nations, the WHO, international tribunals, governments, the political majority, European institutions, universities, and innumerable think tanks and NGOs. long-haired hippies chanting, make love not war, have been replaced by today's politicians, teachers, bureaucrats, and lawyers. The cult of pleasure that once ignited the revolutionary flames does not cause great excitement today. People have more fun and fun is still what people are

said to be after, but these pursuits did not bring about happiness to human life. Contemporary literature describing the condition of sexual liberated man depicts a rather gloomy picture of despair and senselessness. Yet the existential vacuum in which the modern man found himself after the revolution did not diminish the continued onslaught of sexual politics on society. The institutionalization of sex closed the road that was once open to man by hedonism and made void all the promises of what could be found on this road. New promises would sound hollow as one cannot go further than sex. one cannot indicate other human experience, which would be more basic and more democratic, luring people with more tempting illusions of liberation, giving more intense pleasure,

and being more correlated with episodic existence. The only thing that can happen to people and societies going along this road is a continuation of the same sexual policy, which, perpetuated by a bureaucratic routine, will become even more ruthless. And how so? Well, transgenderism. Have you heard of maps? Minor attracted persons? You think it was going to stop at just sexual liberation and homosexuality?

And did you think that was it? Or that they were going to go even further? Yep. That's chapter three. Chapter four is titled ideology. But yeah, that's it. Hope you enjoyed it. And I'll see you for part seven, I believe it's going to be.

Yep, part seven. Thank you. Take care, everyone.