Via Matt Briggs, who was arguing against the progressive agenda of the US State department -- more to be feared than the Chekists, because they seem liberal -- came this. The term Bugmen comes from Moldbug, but, as you can see, it has utility.

In the modern age, the liberal (i.e. the bugman) is the Christian’s worst enemy—though one would be surprised to learn this given the fact that the pagan and “paganism” are still the preferred whipping-boys for the Christian. Whatever their politics or degree of orthodoxy, few Christians are able to resist the temptation to place paganism as the supreme antipode to the Church. This is outdated nonsense, proof that the Christian does not understand his enemy. The pagan is opposed to the Church, but his opposition is couched in the overruling claims made by his own selfhood; the bugman wants his selfhood eviscerated on the altar of social consensus and the zeitgeist. The pagan bows his head to the rule of Nature; the bugman sees his self created by Demos, and his morality and self-hood dependent on sociality. The pagan still adheres to the ideals of classical man; the bugman is transhumanist, and adores the fact that we already live in a functionally post-human era, where the body is thought of as a nuisance to the pleasure-center which modern man takes to be his soul. The classical man can see his ideals reflected in the bosom of Greece and Rome; the bugman longs for the world of Oriental despots and nihilism.

Worse than this is the liberal who clothes himself in Christian vesture—the Christian bugman. This is a creature who uses Church teaching not as a way to complete himself, but as any other manifesto to be employed towards this decade’s attempt at Utopia. The Christian bugman superficially avows Christian teaching, but as a kind of statutory allegiance, not one that adheres to his heart’s core. The Christian bugman has ingested the notion of man created in the Enlightenment and the ensuing liberal eras: that man’s morality and selfhood are created and dependent on sociality, and he has no independent being outside the social body. The liberal bugman is a bigger threat than the pagan ever was, particularly because there are so many working within the Church. Hence, before there can be any Christian recrudescence in the West, we must first reclaim the classical man.

I like Diedrich von Hildebrand’s definition of the classical man from his great Liturgy and Personality. “The classical man… is the spiritually healthy man, the man who stands in full primal relation to spheres of life, who knows the world in its true dimensions, whose response to values possesses inner plenitude, and is heroically unconditional.” The classical man does not see himself as a dependent variable in some inscrutable social equation. He acknowledges the greatness and culpability of his own soul, and his ability to act freely according to his soul’s desires. His actions and beliefs are affected by the social context he finds himself in, but he knows his mind and soul exist independently of these social factors. The recognition of one’s independent self-hood and completeness is critical. Only when we recognize the distinct nature of our own self-hood can we fully engage with other beings, and ultimately engage with Being Himself.

Christian doctrine presumes and perfects the classical man: presumes in the sense that doctrine presupposes it is dealing with a creature prone to all the strengths and weaknesses—the pettiness, jealously, greed, pride, honor, love—which we encounter in pagan literature. Perfects, because doctrine moderates man’s strengths and diminishes his weaknesses, and exposes to him the true plane on which he is waging his earthly battles.

Richard Greenhorn

Photo by Vincent Delegge / Unsplash

More Briggs. He's on a roll.

Reality is, as we discovered earlier it must, rapidly becoming illegal. If the government says a woman is a father, then by all its power and might, by golly she is a father, even though, of course, she is not. And you must agree, or pay the price.Reality is, as we discovered earlier it must, rapidly becoming illegal. If the government says a woman is a father, then by all its power and might, by golly she is a father, even though, of course, she is not. And you must agree, or pay the price.

Here is where all good libertarians conservatives should listen. Progressives won’t grasp this, but there is hope libertarians and conservatives will understand. It is not that those of us on the Traditional right care so much about what some lunatic woman LARPs as, or whether two man want to bugger each into anal prolapses, or whatever. We do care but aren’t interested in launching patrols. What we do not want is to be required to say these things are good. We want to be able to speak of Reality without penalty.

Two men claim to be married to each other, which is an impossibility, and we want to be able to say so, whereas everybody on the left, starting with conservatives, would require that we tell the lie. A culture built on lies, and one that through every major institution, and not just the government, enforces and insists on the lies must devolve further and further into tyranny and madness. Reality eventually will intrude, as it must. Yet when the end comes, which it must, it won’t be pleasant.

It's worth noting that this is not happening in NZ, yet. We have some Female to Male transgender "fathers" who seem to want to raise their child gender neutral. Those of us who have raised kids are quietly giggling. I recall observing boy using sticks as guns and girls using the same sticks as dollies... to the despair of their progressive kindergarten teachers. Reality will bite.

The other problem with such machine men is that – since they are not able to confirm their hypotheses by formal experimentation [1] or the informal application of real life feedback – they fall for the plausible. Peterson is the current example on the right: he is acceptable to the media but he does not offer solutions or change. Peterson would say he is looking for solutions: So would I. But I trust evidence, scholarship, and I don't do speaking tours or set myself up as a guidance guru.

Peterson is not the only person like him: each town has its own set of such.

The question is how to avoid such, particularly in public discussions. Many of us are tacitly or explicitly advised not to talk about their work or research because that would break anonymity and lead to litigation against them or the organizations they work for. You cannot be expert in everything. Taleb is fairly good at probability and statistics, and questions Peterson on IQ because he considers IQ testing unreliable with reasonable evidence.  I'm not at his (or Matt Briggs) level. I take comfort in Lewis' comment in That Hideous Strength that Mark Studdock was a man of straw: with neither a deep scientific or scholarly education, but good at general papers. I am not good at general papers. I prefer deep knowledge. Which protects against the fickle fashions of this age, and the bugmen (straw is too noble for this fallen time) who promote them.

And we should not be like them.


  1. The post modern embrace of qualitative research that merely poses more questions without testing hypotheses is now endemic in most academic departments. Generally very nice people who cannot do any math.
Show Comments

Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox.