The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Thaddeus Kozinski on “Modernity as Apocalypse”
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


Philosophy and humanities teacher Thaddeus Kozinski discusses his new book Modernity as Apocalypse: Sacred Nihilism and the Counterfeits of Logos.

“With a questioning spirit not unlike that of Socrates, the ‘gadfly’ of Athens, Thaddeus Kozinski here examines modernity through a variety of lenses—historical, cultural, philosophical, theological, anthropological, psychological, political, pedagogical—casting light on the Logos that the sacred nihilism of liberalism has so obscured, and unmasking its myriad counterfeits.”

After doing False Flag Weekly News with E. Michael Jones this morning, then interviewing Thaddeus Kozinski eight hours later, I’ve been privileged to talk to two of America’s most important Catholic thinkers in one day.

In this interview Thaddeus Kozinski discusses the growing movement, both at the grassroots level and in academia, questioning the once-sacrosanct elite consensus in favor of secular liberalism:

Peter Simpson lays it out very well, the question of the genealogy of modernity. What we have in liberalism is a kind of simulacra, a counterfeit. And it really fools people, because it seems to have all the bells and whistles that you want, even as a religious person. Everybody likes liberalism. Everyone loves to be able to have autonomy and individual rights and comfort and self-determination. And atheists and secularists say ‘this is great, we have no established religion, this is progress, this is human flourishing at its finest. We no longer have the oppressive rule of throne and altar. Go, go Enlightenment!’ And then the religious people say, ‘well, it’s too bad that we don’t have more religion in the culture and better family values. But at least I can go to church and raise my family as I like and homeschool. So it’s good. It’s a good bargain.”

As long as I can keep my kids away from Drag Queen Story Hour.

“Yeah. ‘And maybe I’ll protest that, and I’ll feel good about protesting it. But nothing will happen, of course. But if the public culture wants to have drag queens as their saint, as their storyteller, as their educator of children, well, I guess that’s the price to pay for me to be able to have my traditional religious views and live them out.’ So this bargain has been made for hundreds of years. But I think something is happening now that’s new. I think scholars coming out, and people in the alternative media, and people like E. Michael Jones and Peter Simpson and DC Schindler. But not just the academics. There seems to be a populist understanding that even the most classical liberalism, not just the ideological atheism of the French Revolution, even the so-called good liberalism of the Anglo-American cast, even that really never exposed itself for what it was. And now we’re seeing its underbelly, which is pretty much diabolical, as DC Schindler calls it in his book Freedom from Reality. It’s diabolical, as Schindler says, because it’s counterfeit. Because it presents itself as substantive and real. But it actually has no substance. And that’s the situation we’re in. And Plato really depicted this well. He prophecized this in his cave allegory.”

Later in the interview Dr. Kozinsky discusses the ongoing false flag epidemic as an example of today’s diabolical elite manipulating shadows on the walls of Plato’s cave.

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Catholic Church, Political Correctness 
Hide 17 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Oh, you can’t push false flags on here.

    Oh, no.

    These rocket scientists don’t believe in them.

    No, to them, everything happened just like they are told on CBS News. Because they are such geniuses.

    No, don’t go peddlin’ none o’ that false flag hogwash around here. Them’s not standin’ for it, the phonies.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  2. Listening to Catholic intellectuals expounding on the virtues of “logos,” I often get frustrated by their seemingly wise, smart and lengthy commentary when -at the end of their talk,- I’m none the wiser for having done all of my listening. It would seem, from their rambles that logos is primarily an abstraction of some kind. It also seems to me that their understanding of the term comes from their belief that Jesus Christ was or is the logos. And this would probably come from the Gospel of John where it starts out in chapter 1 verse 1 saying, “in the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD WAS God.” That word “WORD” in our English bibles is actually a translation of the Greek word “logos.”To their credit mind you, Catholic intellectuals at least have the gumption to talk about logos whereas most Protestant evangelicals simply assume that the word means THE WORD … which means Jesus Christ period! Even the Bible itself -to Evangelicals- is “the WORD” … part and parcel of Jesus Christ (I guess).

    However, I strongly suspect that copyists of the Bible -and writers of the John books in the Ntestament especially- simply borrowed the logos expression and planted it into their writings. Their audience were familiar with the concept of logos? Well here he was … Jesus Christ in the flesh! (Oh, and they had to BELIEVE that he had actually come in the flesh too … or they would be branded as anti-christ! 1 John 4:3, 2:22, 2:18 and 2 John 1:17. Aside from the 4 gospels and a little bit at the beginning of Acts -also written by the author of Luke’s gospel … “Jesus Christ” in the rest of the Ntestament was merely a concept of an ethereal messiah who was expected to come, be revealed and be made manifest. After the gospels were written however, believers in the ethereal Christ were expected to BELIEVE what had been written about him in the Gospels -that he HAD come in the flesh- or they would become antichrists.)

    What does this elusive “logos” expression actually mean?

    It seems that “logos” has meant various things to various philosophers throughout time, from ancient history to the present day and/but, NOW … it almost comes across as something very mystical and sort of unfathomable to the ordinary mind!~ But is it really? Did the earliest inventor(s) of this expression have a rather foggy notion of its meaning or were they fairly sure of what they were talking about? Good question.

    I think the logos expression could probably be summed up as the knowledge and understanding of everything that is, was and will be.

    For example, an inventor who has just created and thoroughly tested a fully working prototype of his invention, would have the logos on his contraption. He alone would KNOW his machine through and through, perfectly. He knows how it works, what to expect of it and what it will do in the future.

    But then, when the invention goes into full production, the inventor himself no longer has full knowledge of everything going on in the assembly lines and … his invention might have problems which even he didn’t anticipate. He no longer has the full logos of it. However, if a careful list is created on every development of that item it would turn into a repository of knowledge which anyone could tap into.

    That -to me- is essentially what “the logos” is all about. It’s a knowledge and full understanding of everything there is to know about everything.

    And, of course, no one individual EVER has that kind of logos all by himself. You might say that GOD HIMSELF couldn’t have the full logos on his own creation … !~

    But … IS there really a GOD who designed and created everything all by himself? Strangely enough, even the Bible doesn’t claim such a thing. The singular word “God” in the Bible is actually a plural expression, written as “Elohim” in the Otestament Hebrew and as “Theos” in the Greek Ntestament.

    Yes, “God” is actually “gods” in the Bible. “In the beginning, gods created the heavens and the earth,” (if you believe the Genesis 1 account. In chapter 2:4-> it happened all over again but this time it was ONE god by the name of Jehovah who did it all by himself). Only when the expression is “Lord” or “Lord God” in the Otestament and as “Father” in the Ntestament … does it indicate a singular entity.

    So let’s assume that logos means a repository of everything that’s known and possibly, everything that IS to be known about everything. How does this or how can it impact our own lives?

    Well, clue #1 might be the word itself. From that, we get our modern word “logic”. There’s also, “lego” (which is, to build).

    You might say that DNA is the logos of life.

    Science has discovered much of what is, by OBSERVING and testing. This could be construed as being a part of logos I suppose, but … only the inanimate part of creation. Inanimate things can be tested and will return the same predictable results every time and so these are things which don’t have to be believed because they can be proven to be true.

    What about discovering the truth about things that can’t be tested or observed directly?

    Well, here we have the implementation of LOGIC which is an extremely powerful tool for determination of what’s true.

    But then there’s another arena of logos which isn’t absolute or provable by repeated testing … and this falls into the category of ‘life’ or the living. Living things are never fully predictable.

    Psychology for example, is a science of studied mental behaviors. To a large extent, psychology can predict behaviors simply on/by what is known about human behavior. But it’s never 100% predictably accurate … as it is with inanimate things.

    Can we PROVE that LOVE exists and is true? To a great degree of accuracy we can say yes … because we see the manifestation of behavior from those who express their verbal love for each other or others. Yet, we can never be certain that love exists between people because love often turns instantly to hate when a lover discovers he/she’s been betrayed. Or … love can even be feigned and we really can’t tell if it’s true or not unless we’re unusually sharp and observant.

    So there’s an area of logos that depends largely on expectation of repetition from previous observation.

    Can the full logos absolutely predict what WILL be? I really don’t know, heh. BUT … being tuned in with the logos can sure help one to anticipate what could easily, likely happen.

    You might call this part of logos “intuition”. Most people have some degree of intuition about things they’ve done or experienced many times. But how about having intuition on things never before experienced? Can this occur?

    I think this is where the big divide occurs between atheists and “theists”. Atheists -because they believe in nothing outside of the observable/provable- aren’t tuned into the possibility of “knowing” the unknowable.

    Spiritual individuals on the other hand, keep themselves open to receiving unknown information because they believe this is possible. (By spiritual, I mean actual ethereal communication that doesn’t come by radio waves or from any known life source. It’s real but can’t be proven objectively).

    How does this difference between atheists and “believers” manifest itself?

    Well, I don’t want to make a bigoted judgement on all atheists or proclaim this to be universally true … but from my own observation, it seems that atheists often MISS a good deal of intuition. If there’s no GOD or gods or intelligent designers or anything outside of the individual self that matters … then competition seems to be the only way to survive. Survival of the fittest and all that.

    Pure competition leads to destruction. Destroy all competition or they’ll destroy you. That’s one way of looking at life. Destroy all competition and take all the hedonistic pleasure possible because what ELSE is there?!?

    The flip side to competition and survival of the fittest is … co-operation and caring for, and about each other. This is part of the logos. And THIS requires a comprehension that there is something greater than ourselves that matters.

    Humans seem to be the only “animals” who are obsessed with the meaning of life! What IS the meaning of life? Without seeing any meaning, people often kill themselves. Well, there’s really no meaning to life at all except for what means most to most of us and that is … being recognized, respected, loved and maybe even … admired. We CRAVE to be recognized by others as uniquely important in some way.

    How do we get that … legitimately? We get that by caring about others first and we care about others because we sense that we were cared about first, from the beginning. If we care, we serve others in ways that we ourselves would like to be treated.. We co-operate with others as best we can and we serve each other. We develop intuition about others and the needs of others.

    The logos has PROVED that this approach to life works much better and is more satisfying than continually trying to destroy others by competition.

    Oh, the logos can’t prove that absolutely through predictable testing and getting the same results every time, but like psychology, the GENERAL outcome of loving, caring, lifting and co-operating brings extremely good results … whereas raw competition -while it might seemingly succeed- leaves nothing but a void in the heart.

    So, logically or “logosically” … a spiritual life, where we recognize something greater, wiser and better than our own selfish selves … is far more satiating than believing in nothing outside of ourselves.

    And that leads me to the question of … are there actually, maybe … spiritual atheists?!~ I don’t know; maybe there are. It would be interesting to find out how they define spirituality.

  3. Dumbo says:

    Thaddeus Kozinski

    Whew. For a moment there I thought the interview was with the Unabomber, but that’s Ted Kaczynski. But actually an interview with the Unabomber might be interesting; his manifesto was.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  4. @Alberta Vince

    “And that leads me to the question of … are there actually, maybe … spiritual atheists?!~”
    Yes.
    The need be no moral difference between the secular & the theist. Both can assume & act on principles. Both can envision good & evil.
    The secularists do so because they realize there’s something intrinsic to human existence that demands expression & sacrifice.
    Anyone, secular or religious can be good or evil. It’s ultimately a personal decision within the limits of your circumstances.

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  5. @Dumbo

    Both Thaddeus and Ted are astute critics of modernity.

    The secular liberalism that Thaddeus criticizes leads straight to the technological nightmare that Ted wants to blow up.

  6. @obwandiyag

    Actually, Ob, most of the commenters here believe in many of the false flag hypotheses. I am one of the few who disbelieve in the majority of them. For instance, I do not believe that 9/11 was any kind of false flag or a controlled demolition, and I am widely resented for saying so.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  7. @Alberta Vince

    You are an extremely verbose and empty-headed idiot.

    “Logos” refers to the rational structure of reality. It is a word that bears witness to the fact that being is consistent with itself, e.g. that causality exists in the external world and not mearly as a category of understanding, that the proper use of logic results in actually valid arguments, that you cannot both have your cake and eat it, etc. The simple fact that the world is an order and not a chaos leads to the recognotion of an ordering principle, which is called Logos. It means that truth is not an epiphenomenon within the mind nor a Punch and Judy show put on by an inscrutible world. Truth and substance go together.

    This is neither that difficult to understand nor particularly esoteric. If you were really that desperate to figure out what ‘Logos’ meant, you would have discovered all I have just said after a few minutes’ Googling. Instead you opted to spend a thousand words yammering on like a gay auctioneer concerning a subject you know nothing about. You are not a serious person and you are wasting everybody’s time.

    Get lost.

    • Replies: @dimples
  8. @Intelligent Dasein

    Yeah, I don’t know about the World Trade Center. Although Building 7 seems somewhat hard to understand.

    On the other hand, these people think a hundred knife attacks on London Bridge are just what the media tells them.

    As a matter of fact, let me put my viewpoint more clearly.

    If the media says it, it’s a lie. Thus, whatever 9/11 is, what they tell me, I know absolutely, is a lie. Always.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  9. Dumbo says:
    @obwandiyag

    I don’t think things are so black or white. Some events are clearly, if not false flags, at least did not happen exactly the way they are being told or the way the majority of people believe. Cases in point, the Holocaust, JFK, 9/11, Srebrenica, several of the recent terrorist attacks, etc. This does not mean that those things did not happen, or that what the media/government tells is a complete fabrication, but just that there’s a lot more that is hidden than what can be seen. And that maybe we will never know all the facts. But it doesn’t mean necessarily that everything is a conspiracy.

    However, several of this attacks or shootings have very strange coincidences, that’s true. Like people who survived one attack being present in another. What are the odds of that?

    9/11, I’m not sure exactly what happened, but it’s clear that at least some people had foreknowledge of the event. Also the whole OBL charade ending with his death and “burial at sea”, that’s obviously a lie.

  10. @animalogic

    Sorry for the late reply. I misplaced my thinking cap and couldn’t find it for a day or two.

    Please note, I’m not attempting to prove that atheists are less moral, ethical or competent than religious believers because obviously, many religious people are far more evil than the average atheist. I’m only trying to find similarities or differences in the perception held by the two “groups.”

    I assume that you consider yourself to be a spiritual atheist? If so … I want to ask you a question.

    Do you believe or feel that you get telepathic communication from somewhere OUTSIDE of your own mind? Thoughts, impressions, feelings, mental images, premonitions etc. that don’t originate from inside of your own self?

    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @dimples
  11. “Do you believe or feel that you get telepathic communication from somewhere OUTSIDE of your own mind? Thoughts, impressions, feelings, mental images, premonitions etc. that don’t originate from inside of your own self?”
    No.
    But I wish I did.

  12. @Alberta Vince

    Should have mentioned — I’m agnostic. There’s no more evidence to prove the existence of a “god/s” as to dis-prove.
    But people prefer the certainty of taking sides — and bully for them.

  13. How would you define “spiritual”?

  14. dimples says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    “For instance, I do not believe that 9/11 was any kind of false flag or a controlled demolition, and I am widely resented for saying so.”

    Yes perhaps you too are an empty-headed idiot who should get lost.

  15. dimples says:
    @Alberta Vince

    Perhaps it’s that time in your spiritual journey when you should consider becoming a student of the paranormal. This is the correct scientific approach to religion for an atheist. Do supernatural phenomena exist? Others before you have also asked this question. Perhaps you can gain something from their experience.

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  16. anon[178] • Disclaimer says:

    Kozinski wants to turn back the clock, but a more philosophically complex clock than was possible in the era he seems to think the “golden age.”

    imo that’s a mistake, not to mention impossible.

    If he — and EMJ — were a bit smarter; able to bust out of the cocoon of that-which-they-know-very-well and willing to take the risk of projecting himself (themselves) into the future, not the past but with roots firmly in the ancient tales — well, that might appeal to an even larger audience.

    The husk of Roman Catholicism can very well serve as the architecture of the future of a dominating religious – spiritual narrative, but it will have to shed generations of corruptions and accretions.

    PS EMJ dismisses myths, as in the Greek and also Nordic myths, as mistakes, misdirections, horribly pagan — that’s foolish and ignorant, imho: the specific myths of various nations and peoples are the soul of their cultures and are best remembered, passed on, celebrated.

  17. @dimples

    Yeah, I have no interest in shoulds/shouldn’ts or in being correct or incorrect. Those are political considerations. I want to know what is … what others perceive, believe and why. It seems to me that if people profess to believe something or to be something -if that’s based on their own personal exploration and experience- they should easily be able to explain why they do … without referring me to some other “source” of compiled framework.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS