Comments on Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s Podcast (2020) “Myths, Monsters and Mysteries” (Part 1)

0001 Why would a Catholic priest podcast on the topics of myths, monsters and mysteries?

Are these actualities somehow related?

Perhaps, they are nested.  Mysteries are locked within monsters.  Monsters are contained in myths.

The outside is myth, the middle has monsters, and the center holds mysteries.

In addition to nesting, the title tells a story. A story has a beginning, middle and end. This podcast title opens with myths, proceeds to monsters, then resolves in mysteries.

Two approaches complement one another.

0002 Why?

Each word in the title labels an actuality.  These actualities fit into one another.  These three actualities tell a story.

0003 Our world is full of stories.  Some are fantasies.  Some are histories.

Fantasies have no foundation in real human events.  So, the story is not real.

Histories are founded in real human events, but often the story is incoherent.

Myths seem to blend these two poles.

Fantasies illuminate how we (humans) think.  For myths, Jungian psychologists investigate this particular topic, revealing universal mental habits.

Histories tell of what happened, by connecting various evidentiary dots or exploring clues.

The magic of myth is simple.  It holds historic dots and clues within itself, long after what happened has passed into the mists of time.  Myths are repeated with such accuracy, that dots and clues may remain for centuries, even millenia.

Consequently, there is no coherent discipline investigating how myths address something that actually occurred.

0004   Can I say that all stories contain clues.

These clues reveal something real. 

 On one hand, this something pertains to human psychology.

On the other hand, this something includes human witness.

0005 Are these poles to a continuum?

Here is how that might look.

Figure 01

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 6)

0040 Harvey Winerock is the poster boy of the marxist endgame.

Here is a character at home with the cruelty of the organization tierB, where asymmetric relations among individuals is contiguous with systemic oppression.  Harvey stands as a gatekeeper for the studios of Hollywood.  He is a gargoyle.  Actresses and actors must speak the proper slogans2a and submit to the proper humiliations1b in order to pass into the bewitched enclave where every asymmetric relation stinks of systemic exploitation.  Welcome to an institution filled with marxists.

0041 Harvey lives the marxist dream.

Until, of course, he does not.


Others can play the game.  The organization tierB changes, every so slightly.  The identification of oppressor and oppressed2c shifts out of his favor.  Harvey and the actress point fingers in a house of mirrors.

0042 Hazony writes of marxism as the end of democracy.

It is really the end of sanity.

Why do French liberals (aka, “old time democrats”) and American liberals (aka, “tea party republicans”) find common cause in 2020?

They both gaze into the house of mirrors that is postmodern modernism.

There is one encouraging feature about the current scene.  American academics, hatching the mantis eggs of the Frankfurt school, succinctly articulate their ever-expanding agendas.  Hazony comes close to appreciating the paradox, where any asymmetric relation within the organization tierB may be interpreted as systemic oppression2c.  If this actuality2c is true and if the organization tierB is full of asymmetric relations (not just full, but bursting with them), then systemic oppression2c is everywhere, except for once-liberal institutions under the control of marxists2b.

0043 What a joke.

InstitutionscC contextualize organizationsB.  InstitutionscC justify organizationsB on the basis of righteousness2a.  Marxists act as if they are institutionscC without the trappings of an organizationB.  Yet, organized they are.  They demand sovereign power3b in order to achieve the organizational goals2b that actualize their slogans2a.  Harvey Winerock and the movie actress both exemplify the exceptional character of marxists.  They are exempt from the marxist critique2c because they self-identify as marxists.

Harvey is promoted by other marxists within the studio system, just as homosexual priests promote their confreres, actresses promote their marxist causes, and public school teachers protest for better wages, in order to get better working conditions.  No, nobody here engages in asymmetric relations that characterize the organization tierB.  Instead, the avatars of the “be little men” movement say that men must become aware how systemic oppression is built into their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

No, marxists cannot see their reflections in the mirror of the world3a, because their illumination2c is supposed to be reflected in the mirror of the world3a.  They see their illuminance2c, not themselves, in their slogans2a.

 0044 Academic postmodern marxist disciplines are inquiries into how this or that asymmetric relation in the organization tierB somehow causes (is contiguous with) a relation between oppressor and oppressed2c.   Marxists destroy once-liberal civic institutions from within, simply by identifying and promoting others who are self-identified victims (and extollers2a) of particular types of systemic oppression2c.  Indeed, their organizational objectives2b force others into submitting1b to slogans2a that assign guilt for participation in systemic oppression1a.

0045 Ultimately, sovereign power3b is required in order to promulgate their organizational objectives2b.  And, this is the ultimatum that Hazony fears.  What happens when marxists gain control of the levers of state power?

Yoram Hazony’s article is an intimation of what will be exposed when conservative, Christian and nationalist citizens challenge Big Government (il)Liberalism, the hidden and the complete perversion of the Enlightenment tradition.

0046  Five related works are available at www.smashwords.com.

A Primer on the Category Based Nested Form

A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction

How To Define the Word “Religion”

A Primer on the Family

A Primer on the Organization Tier (First and Second)


Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 5)

0031 From the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion“, one finds that there are three tiers to the presence underlying the word, “religion”.

They are the societyC, organizationB and the individual in communityA.

The society tierC puts the organization tierB into perspective.  The organization tierB emerges from (and situates) the individual in communityA.

Each tier is diagrammed as a three-level interscope.

0032 So, let me talk business.

When an young individual in communityA enters the organization tierB, by going to work, “he” engages a number of asymmetric relations.

How does a young personA navigate these relationsB?

Obviously, the individual in communityA relies on what “he” has been taught.

0033 American classical liberals teach that the individual should have a dream2a.

French classical liberals instruct the individual with tropes about equality, freedom and human brotherhood2a.  These expectations2a encourage asymmetric business relations to be “win-win”.

Marxist (il)liberals indoctrinate slogans raising awareness of how asymmetric relations between individuals somehow cause (are contiguous with) systemic oppression2a.

0034 Liberalism offers a dream.  Marxism offers a nightmare.  Choose your false consciousness.

0035 Hazony describes the pairing as a dance.  In this dance, one party negates the other.  Thus, the dance is more like the mating ritual between the male and the female praying mantis.  The dance ends when liberalism gets devoured as food for the fertilized egg sacs of marxism.  Afterwards, an all-consuming fecund marxism dies from her own contradictions, in the winter of her totalizing reign.

0036 Why do I say this?

Compare the perspective-level actualities2c for American enlightenment and postmodern marxism.

Figure 10

0037 When the American enlightenment is reflected in the mirror of the world3a, slogans2a call for individuation1b.  The asymmetric relations characterizing the organization tier are depicted as opportunities and hazards for fashioning a dream2a based on one’s talents and dispositions1a.  When confronted with oppressors, the individual should learn how to detect, avoid and escape.  When confronted with mentors, the individual should figure ways to flourish.

0038 Indeed, in America, opportunities1b for success are manifold, ask any movie actress2b promoted by the notorious Harvey Winerock, who turns out to be a postmodern marxist2a,b,c.

In contrast, millions of less-promoted actresses now live in movies of their own, the comedies and tragedies of life in the family2aB, the traditional portal to the organization tierB.  For every one actress who reaches an accommodation2b with Harvey, by playing through his disgusting game1b, millions of women discover that the asymmetric relations inherent in the family realize2b their dreams2a.

Who should be teaching whom?

Surely, a Hollywood actress stands in asymmetric relation to innumerable mothers, among others.

So, what does she preach?

Marxist slogans2a?


In order to attain her dream2b, she is required to become so oppressed2c that she cannot recognize herself as an oppressor2c.  She lives out the scientific truth of marxism2c. She submits1b and receives both rewards and marxist illumination2b.

0039 Why are so many civic institutions of American liberalism now controlled by marxists?

The marxist perspective translates the asymmetric relations of the organization tierB into the languages of oppressor and oppressed.  Mirroring this perspective2c, slogans2a emerge from a righteousness1a that demands submission of the oppressors1b.  One party in all asymmetric relationsB is already guilty of oppression1a on the basis of participation in the system.  That party cannot be the marxist, who represents the oppressed.

By definition, the oppressed2c, such as Harvey Winerock and the Hollywood actress, are exempt because each is a marxist occupying a powerful position in a once civic, now marxist, institution.  Each, in his and her own way, is a victim in an asymmetric relation with a more powerful individual.

For the actress, that more powerful individual is Harvey.

For Harvey, that more powerful individual is the one who bought his soul.


Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 4)

0025 Hazony points to the obvious.  Humans evolve in social circles where there are many relationships between a more powerful individual and a less powerful one, starting with mom, dad and their children.  The organizational structure of this foundational institution is discussed in A Primer on the Family.

0026 The family starts in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  So, there is more.

We must add the unconstrained social and labor specializations that characterize our current Lebenswelt.

Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0027 The organizational structures of civilizationB is a topic worthy of consideration.  The institutionaC and sovereignbClevels of the society tierC contextualize the organization tierB.  The organization tierB encompasses productionaB, exchangebB and assessmentcB.  The organization tierB emerges from (and situates) the individual in communityA.

Too bad inquiry into the organization tierB is yet to be initiated.

Advancements are blocked by marxist theory, in its various guises.  Marxist theory offers a “scientific” model that forecloses intellectual exploration of the organizations tierB.

0028 The model goes like this:

The diverse relations between more powerful and less powerful individuals in the organization tierB are equivalent to the relation between oppressors and oppressed.

The two are more than equivalent.  They are contiguous.

Figure 8

0029 What does contiguity imply?

Peirce’s category of secondness consists of two contiguous real elements.  The contiguity is not a real element, it is the substance that causally binds the two real elements.  The marxist substance carries the character of equivalence, but that is not enough.  Ask any marxist.  The causality is systemic.

Anyone who disagrees speaks with what Jacques Lacan callsthe master’s discourse.  Here is the oppressor.

Anyone who agrees speaks, to me3b, in discourses that Lacan labels, hysteric (for some) and scientific (for others).  For the most part, I find it hard to tell the difference.  I suppose the label depends on the slogan2a.   Each slogan2a addresses the one who asks what does this mean to me3b.

“Me3b” is a placeholder, virtually situating the person’s reflection3b in the marxist mirror of the world3a.

0030 Oppressed? Or oppressor?  Find a location within the abundance of asymmetric relations contained within the organization tierB.

Here is a diagram of the marxist interscope, as far as this discussion sees.


Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 3)

0014 Part 3 concerns the attractions and power of marxism.

The individual is attracted to classical liberalism.

The discontented are attracted to marxist (il)liberalism.

The current iteration of marxist religion is Big Government (il)Liberalism (BG(il)L).

0015 What do marxists have that liberals do not?

Here is a picture of the marxist’s sensible construction

Figure 6

0016 Where is the perspective levelc?

Is it too horrible to view?

The Enlightenment perspective-level actuality (equality, freedom and fraternity2c) addresses three important aspects of human sociality in our current Lebenswelt.

0017 According to Marx, these are not sufficient.

What else is required?

First (A), people form cohesive classes or groups.  May I call them, “institutions”?  Second (B) these classes or groups invariably oppress and exploit one another, culminating in one (the state) enforcing order.  Third (C), the state eventually functions as an instrument of the oppressing class.

0018 Weirdly, Marx’s insight is captured in the chapter on presence in the masterwork, How To Define The Word, “Religion”.   The three elements appear in the institution (content) and sovereign (situation) levels of the societyC tier.

Figure 7

0019 In theory, Enlightenment liberalism achieves order1b, while using the fewest official acts and decrees2b.  It cultivates personal commitments2a to life (equality), liberty (freedom) and the pursuit of happiness (fraternity)2c.  Civic culture consists of various fraternal institutions3a, some Christian (“religious”) and some not Christian (“not religious”)1a, pursuing diverse objectives2a.

Righteousness1a does not arise from within Enlightenment liberalism.  Rather, Enlightenment liberalism is conducive to a wide variety of inspirations.  Liberal righteousness1a demands that each individual pursues opportunities1b offered by competing civic institutions3a according to their talents and dispositions1a.

0020 In contrast, the Marxist vision proposes that a number of otherwise civic institutions3a (A) will pursue organizational objectives2a (B) that require official acts and decrees2b for their implementation1b (C).

0021 Hazony offers examples.

Ideally, public education should be implemented through a general decree stating that all individuals over a certain age must pass a civic exam in order to gain citizenship.  The exam would be offered by (not one but) a suite of competing voluntary institutions, each operating with transparency due to competition.  Education may be subsidized by vouchers to parents.

In practice, modern education engages unionized teachers (A) who demand a monopoly over “public” instruction and examination, as well as a host of other organizational objectives (B), that require state enforcement through official decrees (C).

In sum, Big Government (il)Liberal education exemplifies the Marxist vision.

0022 Hazony offers other examples.  But, the point is clear.  Marxist righteousness1a sensibly constructs organizational objectives2b, that, on one hand, arise from directly from the potential of submission by a target (individuals or institutions)1b, and, on the other hand, are virtually situated by official acts and decrees2b in the sensible construction of societyC.

0023 One reason why Marxist ideas are so attractive is that they promote a righteousness1a that both demands submission from others1b and entangles sovereign power3b.

The task of identifying like-minded individuals is relatively easy, since conservatives, Christians, nationalists and (above all) enlightened liberals espouse other styles of righteousness1a.  All institutions in a modern civic society are vulnerable to infiltration by marxists.

In sum, marxists can easily identify one another, selectively promote one another, and humiliate perceived competition within each institution.  Those who are not marxist within each institution are increasingly expected to toe the party line and to promote entanglements with sovereign power.

0024 Amazingly, Enlightenment liberals find themselves dispossessed by the very institutions that they built.

Does this imply that the marxists hold a perspective-level actuality2c that (if you will excuse the pun) trumps equality, freedom and fraternity2c?

Hazony does not directly raise this question.

He does so, indirectly.

He discusses the flaws that make marxism fatal.


Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 2)

0005 How should I define the righteousness of the classical liberal?

The classical liberal entertains a perspectivec that occludes the foundational world of Christianity.  The classical liberal extols3c equality, freedom and fraternity2c.  These2c are the means to human fulfillment1c.

The American Bill of Rights declares life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Equality is the right to life and justice.  Freedom is the liberty to make one’s own choices.  Fraternity involves private property.  One must own the possessions that one shares with family, friends, teammates and other social circles.  Otherwise, one usurps.

0006 The classic liberal perspective-level nested form looks like this.

Figure 2

0007 Surely, this perspectivec level does not contextualize marxist contenta and situationb levels.


Hazony speaks of two steps.  In the first step, the Enlightenment covers up Christianity.  In the second step, Marxism occludes the Enlightenment.

So, let me start at the first step.

Christian social virtues describe what God reveals about human sociality.  Saint Paul discusses equality in his letters. Christ frees humans from the chains of original sin.  The body of Christ, the Church, possesses an object that brings all into relation.  Finally, all these actualities emerge from the potential that a human can attain eternal life with God, the ultimate fulfillment.

The Enlightenment makes these virtues immanent.

0008 What does this immanence entail?

How does the Enlightenment perspective play into situation and content levels?

0009 First, let me simply slide the normal contexts of the situationb and contenta levels of the marxist sensible construction underneath the Enlightenment perspectivec level.  Here is the resulting three-level interscope, a relational structure discussed in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

Figure 3

0010 Second, I fill in the blanks.

The content level actuality2a turns extols3c into a dream2a, an object associating with an individual’s future, choices and companions. The individual’s dream2a arises from talents and dispositions1a.

What possibility1b situates the individual’s dream2a?

Of course, there must be opportunity1b.

Then, with hard work and luck, one realizes2b that dream2a.

0011 This sounds so American.  Here is the interscope.

Figure 4

0012 The French Enlightenment, on the other hand, rots as it ripens.  Unlike eighteenth-century America, France is loaded with god-defying intellectuals, salon-attending little royals and cunning lawyers, who dream of running political affairs without the burden of king and church. They have talents and dispositions1a toward promoting organizational objectives2bbased on reason1b.  Reason1b gives opportunity to righteousness1a.  As such, their dreams2b,2a are tautological.

The Marxist frame, perceptively delineated by Hazony, develops in situ within French Enlightenment civilization.  The sarcastic godless intellectuals, self-absorbed gossip-bearing little nobles and the reason-worshipping lawyers consider themselves to oppressed by the oppressors, king and church.  King and church express a false consciousness.  The system works for them, not everyone else, especially the discontented.  Revolution will reconstitute society and the inherent ironies of the present regime will disappear.

0013 Here is a diagram.

Figure 5

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 1)

0001 Yoram Hazony publishes a six part opinion piece, concerning the relation between Enlightenment traditions and Marxism. on August 16, 2020, in the Quillette website (http://vlt.tc/41uo).  The essay is eye-catching for its portrayal of the capture of liberal institutions by marxists (now, with a small “m”) during the past three-score years.  Marx is back in a big way.

0002 In the prior blog, discussing the Be Little Men movement, two actualities come to the fore.  The first is a slogan2a, based on righteousness1a, that addresses the mirror of the world3a.  The second is an organizational objective2b, telling what the slogan means to the marxist3b.  This objectorg2b arises from the possibility of submission1b.  Submission1bvirtually situates (and emerges from) marxist righteousness1a.

0003 Here is a picture of the two-level interscope, composed of two nested forms, following the style in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

0004 According to Hazony, marxists have infiltrated American media companies, universities, government bureaucracies, courts, so-called profits, so-called non-profits and churches.  Classical liberals have lost control of their own institutions. Classical liberals do not have the intellectual or spiritual resources to combat the threat.


The Two Actualities of the “Be Little Men” Movement

0001 Sociology is often a curious field of inquiry. In the mirror of the world3, there is only one Be Little Men movement (blm).  Blm is a slogan2.  No substitutions to these words are allowed.  The potential1 underlying the slogan2 is fixed on the only possibility among a sea of possible meanings, presences and messages.  That potential is the possibility of marxist righteousness1.

Here is a picture of a triadic relation, as introduced in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

Figure 1

0002 What is marxist righteousness1?

Marx is a “communist” who names his enemy, the “capitalist”.

The specter of “capitalism”?

Das Kapital?

The root word for “capital” is “head”.

Wrap your cap around that.

0003 Marxist righteousness1 relies on the emptiness of spoken words.  A speech-alone word is merely a placeholder in a system of differences.  Meaning, presence and message must be projected into each spoken word.  The marxist reserves the right to project that meaning, presence and message.

Allow no substitutes.

Substitutions squander the purity of the projection.

0004 What does this mean to me3?

This is what the target of a marxist slogan never asks.

The slogan isolates the guilty.

Originally, the capitalist is the one upon which marxist righteousness descends.  The target is guilty, with no option of managing the label, except through submission1.  Indeed, the organizational objective2 is to manifest submission1.

Now, other labels serve as slogans2a.

This second nested form situates the first nested form, as described in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

Figure 2

0005 There are two blms.  On the content level, blm is a slogan2a emerging from (and situating) righteousness1a.  On the situation level, blm manifests organizational objectives2b that actualize the potential of submission1b, thus increasing the wealth, power and overall prowess3b of those reflecting the mirror of the world3a.

According to rumors, advertisers in saavy suites say that executive suits of major corporations donate large sums1b to an organization2b whose namesake is the slogan2a.  Other, less well-endowed targets are suited up as scapegoats, following the historic and literary patterns noted by Rene Girard.  Marxist righteousness projects a lack, held within the accuser, upon a scapegoat, the target.

0006 Yes, by definition1a, certain types can never submit1b.  These characters are magically gifted with the power to create the lack that they are accused of1a as well as the standing to fill that lack with their own… shall I say?.. capitals1b.

0007 Is marxism a modern version of an ancient religion?

Surely, early civilizations sacrifice humans to their gods.

Remember the old adage?

A capitalist will sell the communist the rope to hang himself.

The joke works as long as the target does not comprehend the intent of the customer.

Why would anyone hang the fellow who sold “him” some rope?

Marxist righteousness calls the fellow, a “capitalist”.

The seller’s hanging manifests the realness of the marxist’s organizational objectives1b.

In the same way, ritual sacrifice validates the realness of ancient deities.

0008 What else does this imply?

The target is not privy to what does this mean to me3b.  The deadly earnestness of marxist submission1b cannot be appreciated from the outside.  The above two-level interscope is sensible only from the inside.  The insider holds the secret knowledge3a that secures the slogan’s single possible meaning, presence and message1a.

If a gnostic path blossoms into a social movement, such as the be little men movement, then today’s secular academic sociologists include the topic in their regional and global meetings, showcasing how they are in tune with the emerging secret knowledge.  They can explain it.  They can write books about it.  They can explore its righteousness1a, explicate its slogans2a, develop pathways for submission1b and extol its authority2b.  They can conduct surveys in order to show how a slogan has struck a cord in social consciousness3a.  They can tell all how the insider feels3b.

0009 Modern sociology is such a curious field of inquiry.  It poses as a mirror3a of the worldc.  As such, it constructs its own sensible approach, in the same fashion as marxist religions.

0010  Five related works are available at www.smashwords.com.

A Primer on the Category Based Nested Form

A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction

How To Define the Word “Religion”

Comments on Eric Santner’s Book (2016) “The Weight of All Flesh”

Comments on Peter Burfeind’s Book (2014) Gnostic America