Book Review: The Closing of the American Mind

by Elusive Wapiti on May 14, 2012

The BookThe Closing of the American Mind, by Allan Bloom.

Summary:  In this 25 year old book, Mr. Bloom, a former college professor at the University of Chicago, argued that the minds of Americans have become ‘closed’ by being indiscriminately open to all comers. He explains this initially contradictory claim by comparing the textbook definition of openness…the search for the good, the correct, and the banishing of ignorance by applying reason…with what has become the conventional definition of openness in modern discourse: the openness of an mind that accepts everything equally and refusing to employ (or even suppresses) reason’s power to judge ‘good’ and ‘bad’. In Bloom’s characterization, the Western mind has regressed to a pre-Western Civ state…a mind characterized by openness is ‘beyond good and evil’ (a concept found in Classical and older civilizations), and because the good life neither valued nor actively sought, ideas are given more or less equal weight when encountered. The American mind first spurned, then forgot its heritage and consequently floats along, adrift in a stream of values about which it no longer cares (or is permitted) to discriminate. Thus, virtue in the mind of the modern American is no longer found in being right or correct, or in correcting past mistakes, but in being open, tolerant, non-judgemental. The open-cum-closed mind does not look back to analyze the past, only forward to the next judgement-free encounter.

In openness-land, the only real vice is intolerance toward the new. Mr. Bloom worried about this new openness and what it means for American and Western culture when the received wisdom of tradition and the acquired wisdom of over a millennia of Scholasticism is rejected in favor of all kinds of men, credos, and lifestyles. As America from its inception was a radical experiment in natural rights and natural equality, it did not possess an aristocracy per se, an elite class where culture and wisdom were maintained and transmitted to the next generation for the entire people. Instead, the American anti-aristocratic model depended on the university to educate its citizens directly, regardless of social class, to inculcate a desire to seek virtue, and to motivate them toward seeking and living the “good life”. Instead, today, “men are [no longer] permitted to seek the natural human good and admire it when found”, for that is discriminatory and intolerant. Thus tradition and Western natural law are neutralized and the Western tradition of critical self-reflection, a tool unique to Western Civilization (other cultures and civilizations see no reason to test their cultures or their habits, their cultures are just fine, thank you very much) and a feature that enabled its greatness, is reduced to merely critique. Our past is shameful because it was so ‘closed’, our culture is flawed (because its past is flawed), and our beliefs are merely accidents of our place in the stream of time and as a result, our preferences are only that…accidents.

Similarly, not only is the American university adrift, but when young Americans arrive at university, they are vessels largely devoid of a sense of virtue or moral clarity. Their minds are tabulae rasa and, mirroring the decline in the universities–nobody believes the old books written by dead white men could contain any truth useful for us know-it-all moderns–the family has also retreated from its traditional role as the transmitter of knowledge and tradition. In its place enters media and the schools, as parents seem to

lack self-confidence as educators of their children, generously believing they will be better than their parents, not only in well-being, but in moral, bodily, and intellectual virtue. There is always a more or less open belief in progress, which means the past appears poor and contemptible. The future, which is open-ended, cannot be prescribed to by parents, and it eclipses the past which they know to be inferior [emphasis mine]

A moral education, which to be effective, according to Mr. Bloom, must present to the pupil “a vision of the moral universe, reward for good, punishment for evil, the drama of moral choices”, and a sense of the stakes involved in such choices. Mere ‘values education’ in the school system does not suffice, it is but the wind, with no anchor to hold it in place. Furthermore, Mr. Bloom argues that the lack of exposure to great literature from the past stunts the educated citizen’s ability to identify evil, as those who have not read the great books doubt evil’s existence, despite the fact that they witness horrible crimes and see many many more on the news. The citizen-student, open and adrift as he is, lacks an awareness of both the depths and the heights.

Mr. Bloom argued that this openness of indifference extends to human relationships as well. The American mind has become sharply egocentric, self-focused, defensive, and inwardly directed. Openness as the ultimate virtue drives a radical egalitarianism, with the result that the culture no longer recognizes no practical differentiation between any persons. When observable differences do surface, as they do most often with race, ethnicity and sex, they are denied, engineered away, or made taboo. Truth and reason are abused to maintain the openness-egalitarian narrative when the facts say otherwise–”the recalcitrant matter of the is gave way before the practical and philosophical ought to be“–resulting in racial and ethnic bribery for NAMs and sex-based set-asides for women. All in the name of forcing the unequal to be equal, an attempt to restore the equilibrium of sameness the closed mind seeks.

In addition, this openness-egalitarianism has wedged the sexes apart. Bloom wrote, channelling Socrates, that “equal treatment of women necessitates the removal of all the old kind of sexual relations…and a consequent loss of the human connections that resulted from them which [Socrates] replaces with the common good of a city”. Men and women are thus undifferentiated in custom and in law, sex loses much of its significance for men and women, except as a purely recreational activity, and a feminism takes root hat denies nature, denies the truth of sexual differentiation, homogenizes and suppresses relationships between the sexes.

In Bloom’s account, this closing of the American mind has a long and distinguished pedigree. He locates it in three events, the Enlightenment, the absolute defeat of Rousseauean philosophy in favor of the Lockean variety, and a misinterpretation and misapplication of Nietzschean philosophy. The Enlightenment dethroned God and promoted man and his ability to reason in its place. Religion, by definition virtue-prescriptive, was marginalized to the realm of opinion and myth and, because it is but one opinion or creed among others, it has little definitive knowledge to offer about the human condition and the soul. Locke advanced this ball further downfield, realigning virtue from the difficult task of loving one’s brother to ‘enlightened self interest’. No longer was agape a virtue, no longer was the man who cared for others virtuous, but instead the most virtuous man became he who cared for himself the most:

The old commandment that we love our brothers made impossible demands on us, demands against nature, while doing nothing to provide for real needs. What is required is not brotherly love or faith, hope, and charity, but self-interested rational labor. The man who contributes most to relieving human misery is the one who produces most, and the surest way of getting him to do so is not by exhorting him, but by rewarding him most handsomely to sacrifice present pleasure for the sake of future benefit, or so assure avoidance of pain.

Locke encouraged his fellow man to love life, liberty, and the pursuit of property above all other things. The protestations of his antithesis, Rousseau, that such a proto-utilitarian philosophy left man’s spiritual side unattended and bereft were largely ignored, leaving the modern man spiritually adrift, or as Mr. Bloom wrote, ‘flat-souled’. Into this nexus then came Nietzsche and other great German thinkers. Nietzsche recognized how Lockean philosophy stifled and hobbled man’s soul and encouraged him to become something bigger than a selfish economic agent. In writing about the new world that awaits the man that looses his spirit, Nietzsche wrote ” Gott ist tot ” in reference to the power that man has to shape his future were he to only will it so. Here, Mr. Bloom claims that Nietzsche’s prouncement was not so much a triumph, as is commonly thought, but was instead a lament…was this all there is? Bloom then asserts that the Enlightenment forces hostile to religion from the get-go seized upon this confirmation of God’s death and used that as the jumping off point for an aggressive religious and dogmatic atheism…thus transforming Nietzsche into a hero of the Left, where he would more properly be a Rightist. What started as an attempt to realize natural law, reason, ever the devil’s whore, slowly becomes an auto-immune disorder.

Enter now the Frankfurt School, a nihilistic leftist philosophic school that fled Germany in the 20s and 30s, ironically escaping an aggressive instantiation of their nihilistic and leftist philosophy. First coming to Columbia University, this cancer rapidly spread to the rest of the American academy, and the revolution that comes with the upending of one weltanschauung and installation of another came to a head in the 60s. In the 60s, American universities were experiencing the same turmoil and dismantling of the structure of rational inquiry as had the German university in the 30s. The result was the same however…a levelling of the populace, and the distinction between the educated and the uneducated, the diversity of many differing opinions, had given way to homogenization. No vision–or even competing visions–of what constituted an educated human was on offer, merely a keen focus on equality, which “…for us seems to culminate in the unwillingness and incapacity to make claims of superiority, particularly in the domains in which such claims have always been made–art, religion, philosophy. [Furthermore,] no one can say what “civilized” means, when there are said to be many civilizations that are all equal”. Thus did the American mind close, the effect of a nihilistic abandonment of the Western rational tradition, a tradition that made room for both the mind and the spirit. Victorious, reason-based radical egalitarianism found that it had to suppress reason to maintain the hegemony of radical egalitarianist philosophy.


One thing that is obvious to readers of this book is the inherent structural bankruptcy of the philosophy of openness. For if we are not to think our way better than others, then what tools do we have to tell right from wrong? Some of us have religion, the remainder of the polity has merely the direction of the herd to shape their values and ethics. In other words, there is nothing but the mob. Perhaps this is the very point…how easy it is to shape the behavior and tastes of a mob, what with compulsory public schooling, an agenda-driving media selecting what issues are worth discussing and which are not, and advertising that teaches what goods are to be desired and which are not. Freethinking? I think not.

Something else, too: What chance does Western civilization have if it is peopled by those who either think Western civilization should be destroyed or those who think it gauche to think it preferable to other civilizations. I think this has profound implications for the West as we adapt to challenges from Islamic and Sinic civilizations, two civilizations who do not suffer from the profound self-loathing that the West seems to have at the moment. Will the West summon the will to carry on?

Additionally, being an MRA of sorts, I found what Mr. Bloom had to say wrt relations between the sexes of particular interest. Of the state of the male sex in an egalitarian society, he had this to say way back in 1987:

de Tocqueville describes the tip of the iceberg of advanced egalitarianism when he discusses the difficulty that a man without family lands, or a family tradition for whose continuation he is responsible, will have in avoiding individualism and seeing himself to be an integral part of a past and a future, rather than as an autonomous atom in a merely changing continuum

On this point, Mr. Bloom was very prescient. 1987 was just a few years after ‘peak divorce‘, the revolution that divested men from their families and initiated a self-reinforcing cycle of family breakup, made both men and women both think that the male is not a necessary component to the family, a nice-to-have luxury, certainly not essential. We see now, 25 years later, the effects of advanced egalitarianism, most notably in rising rates of commitment avoidance and rational slackerhood. I do not think most men really see themselves as part of a living society, with a past and certainly a future that he can be a part of. Instead, he lives only for himself, and is wary of the sort of social entanglements that his forefathers took for granted as part of the role of a patriarch.

I found myself also wondering if the increasing lack of substantive differentiation among men and women, legally and socially, is fuelling the rise in availability and acceptability of pornography both for men (visual) and for women (romance novellas). It seems that, since sex differences are denied except for when advantage can be accrued to the female, genuine sex itself loses its power among otherwise undifferentiated men and women. What remains of the sex act then is a hollow shell, the industrialized rubbing of genitalia, somewhat satisfying but yet still leaving the practitioner wondering if there was more, wondering why their forebears fussed so about sex and relationships, not missing what they don’t know. Furthermore, perhaps men and women are increasingly turning to porn in an unconscious effort to re-establish that differentiation, to regain what they don’t know in their head they’ve lost but their flesh still cries for nonetheless.

An another thought that came to mind while reading Mr. Bloom’s manuscript was how adopting the virtue of openness replaced the old, former sex-differentiated virtues for men and particularly for women,  responsibility and modesty, respectively. Instead of modesty, female sexuality is instead ubiquitous…it is nigh upon impossible for a man to walk down the street without individual women or advertisements featuring women attempting to manipulate him through displays of sexual imagery. What’s more, the culture is absolutely unable to resist this trend; slut-shaming is not very tolerant, ergo verboten, and ‘blaming the victim’ is an offense of a very high order. Similarly, although somewhat less so, virtue for men does not appreciably contain elements of responsibility; indeed, responsibility is something to be avoided when possible, viz., the rise in cohabitative unions, low and falling levels of male community engagement, working only enough to satisfy one’s individual needs, etc. While the old patriarchal society is no more, it was replaced by a functionally matriarchal one, and male responsibility, unlike female modesty, is still enforced vigorously by the State through chalimony, property division, and state transfer payments.

In conclusion, I found this a very worthwhile book, although the writing was at times very difficult to penetrate and could be much more compact. That said, the author did an outstanding job of imparting to the reader a sense of history, of a thread leading straight from the Enlightenment through the social contract theorists to German philosophers and forward to the Frankfurt School to the state of modern American academia.

About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti.

{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }

Okrahead May 14, 2012 at 05:27

For what it’s worth I think Locke was misinterpreted here. Locke did not find “enlightened self interest” to be contrary to agape; rather he found that such a properly applied self interest could find its proper outlet only in actions consistent with agape. Additionally, Locke was writing concerning proper governance by the state, an institution wholly incapable of enforcing Christian agape. Rousseau of course believed the state to be capable of enforcing agape, and so became the father of the terrors of the French Revolution and the genocidal utopias of the twentieth century, whereas Locke became the father of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Judge the tree by its fruit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Annonymous May 14, 2012 at 05:37

“Rational-Slackerhoodism” chimes quite well as a precept of the mens movement. A counterpart to Sino cultures grass-eating by the dissafecteds.

Mind you, this is not as destructive a conception as it may seem at first glance. That is,when you consider that any countervailing actions or thoughts to conserve or to repair things, merely prolongs the sickness indefinitely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Opus May 14, 2012 at 06:36

Even so, it is still all the fault of Locke, who famously wrote an Essay on Toleration.

Of course, the sort of things we tolerate would have shocked him.

Disapprove of Lesbians – you’re a bigot
Disapprove of Gay Marriage – ditto
Dislike mass immigration – ditto
Are doubtful about female equality – you’re a mysogynist

The list goes on

After all, if they are happy, who’s to complain. If they like it, then what is there to object to. If it’s nice; just do it. The only exception to that which I can think of is Incest, where it denied outright that any person under the age of sixteen (eighteen in America) could ever enjoy let alone encourage sexual activity.

…and just so the point is properly made, everything that you like is wrong.

Your Countries History which brought civilisation and the World Wide Web is not a source of Pride, but a criminal record.
You’re heterosexual. Are you absolutely sure – sounds like you are in denial that you are gay?
You hang out with your white buddies – obviously proof of Racism
You think women act like sluts – you can’t get laid and are envious of women’s empowerment.
You are less than impressed by women’s justified success – you’re just a bitter loser with a smaller penis and even smaller brain.

I really do not think that that was what Locke had in mind, at least I cannot find it in The Essay on Human Understanding.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3
Brendan May 14, 2012 at 06:40

Bloom was an enigma if there ever was one. He insisted he was not conservative (yet liberals loathed his views), was gay (without being a gay rights backer) and died of AIDS. Yet his motivator and core was not his sexual orientation (unlike today’s “professional gays”) but his mind and its orientation around the good, the just and the true. It is for this reason that liberals hate him — he was so far off script for a gay guy that they just didn’t know what the heck to do with him.

I think his book is generally required reading. My own view is only slightly different, in that Rousseau was really the gateway drug (man is essentially good in his nature, which effectively denies original sin, and does away with the need for Christianity in theory) for the more fully-blown madness that happened later with Locke and Nietszche. I also think that the Enlightenment needs to be put in its proper context — i.e., the intellectual development of humanism which flourished in the Renaissance and which led directly to the Reformation, which itself led directly to the Enlightenment. It was really the misappropriation (the mis-reappropriation) of the classical works by the West in the post-dark-ages era that led to this whole mess, to be honest.

Still, the Enlightenment is hard to bash in its entirety. Democracy sucks, but it’s better than anything else. The West peaked well high over other civilizations during, and as a result of, the Enlightenment and its emphasis on reason and progress. The problem was really that the philosophers and scientists progressively refused to admit any room for God, and were consumed, instead, by their zeal for their own brains. In the short run this worked well, but in the long run it is leading to an endgame of nihilism and ennui writ large. Not well thought out, unfortunately, but that’s to be expected.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5
Opus May 14, 2012 at 07:29


I think you will find that Locke predated Rousseau somewhat.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Towgunner May 14, 2012 at 07:34

What I think we’re seeing right now is the abject failure of the progressive ideology. The insistence of “openness” as the only absolute, if you will, has resulted in the exact opposite. Consider how “open” the ultra-tolerant crowd is to any dissenters or to heterosexual men? Just anecdotally, does any feel that we live in an open society? The reasons are clear; equality does not exist, and to insist that it does, creates a toxic self-erasing environment. The impact is systemic, and in reference to the sexes, notional equality has resulted in a rift between men and women. Personally I don’t find western women to be very attractive, even the attractive ones. Their attitudes, contradictions and lack of morality are repulsive. I don’t need a co-worker or a teammate, I get those from other men and since I’m not gay, I don’t find these things in women to be attractive. Moreover, with women there is a perverse sense of entitlement that coexists with a now very overt and both illogical and unfounded projection of bravado and superiority? As a young boy, my behavior had to be backed up. If I projected dominance, I was called out and usually had to fight to prove it. women, never had to do this. All they do is take their entitlements and then insist that men extend the same “respect” to women that we would to an accomplished sportsman. So, women are, once again, saying “I want but I didn’t earn”. Back to equality. There are natural touch-points in this edifice that can be easily exposed and broken. After all, universal, absolute equality denies the functionality of one of the most productive human organs – the eyes. It may seem that this ideology is too tough to break…I mean who can deny “equality”. But we can exploit the contradictions of equality and the acute suffering it causes. For instance, if we’re all equal then why don’t we all go to harvard? Just as a man is different from a woman and these differences are viewed as oppressive, why can’t we apply the same logic to intellectuals…in that their naturally higher IQ is oppressive and a social construct? I also think it’s’ time to debunk the true myth of sexual inequality, but it’s not the kind that we’ve been saturated with. Sexual inequality is very apparent in the dating realm. Now, like many others, I too agree that this is the way of things – oddly a response you get from the progressives. But, we must hold the un-yielding standards hoisted on male advantages in the same way. Consider this: If a man’s natural strength and testosterone is an oppressive social construct, then so is a beautiful women’s natural appearance. As such, a woman only choosing certain mates is a discriminatory practice since she is valuing the superficial characteristics of other people that they have no control over. When we enter this world, we don’t even get to choose our name let only “the cards”. Indeed the last frontier of “equality” isn’t gay rights…far from it. I would think that if we as humans want to progress equality then we need to reconcile the differences of appearance, intellect, athleticism…even hair, no hair…shoe size, first. Never mind, your sex, you are judged on these items with high degrees of scrutiny, more so today than ever. You want absolute equality…okay, then it’s time to level the playing field sexually; it’s the only market that really matters. Looks should no longer matter, and you are uglyphobic if it does. So, theoretically retarded people should sleep with models. Basing a person’s value on what they had no control over is discrimination.

The point here is not to lobby for an actual leveling of playing fields in the sexual hierarchy; the point is to expose the pink, flabby flesh of this entire institutions large and bulbous underbelly. women will never agree to these terms, nor should they, as such we get them to admit this and with that a firm admission that “equality” is not obtainable. To be clear this is the intellectual coup de grace that will bring this entire house down. We can then lift the festering blob of the last 60 years and launch it into oblivion. When we have the courage to accept that people are different, men and women are different and equality is a nice ideal but impossible, a better order will come back into being.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Elusive Wapiti May 14, 2012 at 08:03

@ Okra,

“Locke did not find “enlightened self interest” to be contrary to agape; rather he found that such a properly applied self interest could find its proper outlet only in actions consistent with agape.”

I agree, and I think Bloom would too were he still alive. Locke postulated that the bests interests of men could be better (best?) served by harnessing his own selfish interests.

This position is dubious, as even a cursory peek around society these days suggests. The naked pursuit of self-interest, while a great foundation for a capitalistic market economy, quite clearly leaves a great humanitarian need uncovered. Economic man of the sort conceived by Enlightenment thinkers just doesn’t seem to be cutting it.

Elusive Wapiti May 14, 2012 at 08:06

@ Brendan,

“The problem was really that the philosophers and scientists progressively refused to admit any room for God, and were consumed, instead, by their zeal for their own brains. In the short run this worked well, but in the long run it is leading to an endgame of nihilism and ennui writ large. “


Paul Murray May 14, 2012 at 08:07

“The protestations of his antithesis, Rousseau, that such a proto-utilitarian philosophy left man’s spiritual side unattended and bereft”

Whenever I hear the word “spiritual”, I substitute in the word “imaginary”. It clarifies things immensely.

The difficulty with the pre-enlightenment worldview is that there are, in fact, no gods. In fact. It’s better to face reality than to retreat into the comforts of fantasy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10
Seamus the Classicist May 14, 2012 at 08:33

“B..b..b.but Men study and do well in the STEM fields, the only real University/college fields left. The study of Humanities, Philosophy, and Classics can be done as hobby and is not the profession of real Men.” As most Americans would say. But do Real Men flush away their heritage and culture for money and fancy degrees that ammount up to tinkering? Remember Bloom was the funder of the “Great Books” method of education, how many people truly dedicate their education to that, much less place importance on it? We lost our culture because we gave it up, it was easier to promote science and business as the proper domain of men instead of culture and literature, and then we surprised when we find ourselves knifed in the back.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Nemo May 14, 2012 at 08:42

Some of these ivory tower professors are unable to see what is going on right in front of their faces.

If you actually go to an Ivy League school and take a poll, you will discover that almost all of the students have two parents who have been married for the entire life of the student.

It appears that it’s almost a necessity to have two loving, caring parents who want you to succeed if you are going to perform well enough in high school to gain admission to an exclusive school.

Wow. Patriarchy works better than anarchy/matriarchy. Who woulda thunk it. Those evil White Heterosexual Males – the ones who set up those universities in the first place – were on to something.

In other words, you should listen carefully to the liberal indoctrination that you are being given by the faculty in the “arts” departments and then act in the exact *opposite* manner if you want your own kids to attend your alma mater.

The other “fact” that they try very carefully to hide is that if they had truly merit-based admissions, almost all of the students would be either Asian or Jewish. In the hard sciences and engineering, which are closer to a meritocracy than other departments, it’s not uncommon for half of the students to belong to one of these two groups.

They build residences for “disadvantaged” minorities such as American Indians to try to polish their liberal credentials, but they aren’t educating them in the most difficult subjects because their own liberal philosophy of “anything goes” sabotages the ability of those students to perform at the very highest standards being set by intact families with traditional values, such as the Jewish and Asian communities.

If we could wave a magic wand and make every family in every minority group as patriarchal as most Asian families are, then we would see a surge in the academic perfromance of those poor “disadvantaged” kids.

In real life, the graduates with the education in the hard sciences will be better equipped to deal with the future than the “ethnic studies” and “women’s studies” majors. The Chinese can use a physicist and will be willing to employ him once they take over the economy of the US. They will actively avoid hiring a “women’s studies” major as it is patently obvious that she will cause problems rather than solve them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5
keyster May 14, 2012 at 09:28

Victorious, reason-based radical egalitarianism found that it had to suppress reason to maintain the hegemony of radical egalitarianist philosophy.

That ws exactly the idea behind the “Critical Theory” strategy and articulated by Saul Alinsky. Perpetually criticize the “traditional” state of things, capitalism and inequality (class warfare), while offering no viable alternative – – because Marxism will reveal ITSELF as Just naturally, if the current system can be torn down culturally.

The chink in the armour is that they have to eventually become tolerant of intolerance (to their own dogma), or they expose themselves as hypocrites to their own philosophy of “openess”, “inclusion” and “fairness”. Political correctness is straining to keep criticism in check as dissenting opinion is beginning to get louder through the internet and talk radio. The leftist MSM and Academia are rather flumoxed as to how to stop the onslaught of the “New Media”.

America’s forefathers (and John Locke) would have been both proud and intrigued by the power of the internet. Karl Marx, Thomas Hobbs and the Leviathan, not so much. It’s Gutenberg’s redux.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Pirran May 14, 2012 at 09:35

I’m glad you decided to review Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind” which I read nearly 20 years ago. It immediately chimed with so much that I had started to observe in College (although, needless to say, his views were verboten).

The other book that stands out from the hundreds I read at that time was “Not Guilty: In Defence of the Modern Man” by the great journalist, David Thomas. This was the first book that really opened my eyes to the punitive misandry of feminism. It’s largely forgotten now, but it caused quite an uproar at the time in the UK as it was the first MRA book to get large play in the media (Thomas was the youngest editor of “Punch” at the time) and any books or articles that dared question the feminazi status quo could instantly destroy your career (Thomas detailed cases of journalists that had been destroyed in his book). Sadly, it’s still devastatingly relevant today two decades later.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Mr. J May 14, 2012 at 11:04

It is indeed a bad thing to be so open-minded that one’s brains fall out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
keyster May 14, 2012 at 12:11

I thought we needed MORE women in the financial services industry because they were smarter and more risk adverse, than those crazy testosterone laden evil men. Afterall most Moms run the finances at home, so naturally they’re better with money.

Why aren’t there more female CEO’s, board members and executives? Just maybe,… because they’re not so good at it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Towgunner May 14, 2012 at 12:41

@ Keyster:

Yeah, why aren’t there more females in….”blank”?

Why weren’t there any female warriors throughout history and in all civilizations from around the world? Oh why Keyster!!, she can kill just as well as a man??…oh wait, now that we finally released her from the prison of not being made to fight, we have a polling stat that says she’s better at killing than men. Yeah!!, we found out that she collects more ears and teeth than any other man on the death squad! Its so backwardian and oppressive to think that women aren’t as fully capable at killing as men are?

Back to sanity…maybe just maybe women suck at this too, unless its abortion or killing their little kids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Eric May 14, 2012 at 13:09

Bloom was right about nihilism being at the core of s0-called egalitarianism, but I think he was mistaken as to its actual motives. The motive behind most of this so-called ‘inclusionism’ has nothing to do with elevating other cultures or opening a sort of laissez-faire morality. The purpose is to destroy Western Culture, for the sake of destroying it. Inclusionism is only a means to that end. If Bloom had lived 25 years later, he would have seen that, once those ‘nihilists’ come into power anywhere, things like ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ are the LAST things they’re concerned with, even though they still employ those masks occasionally for PR purposes.

That’s where Bloom is in error; by trying to trace a logical, philosophical connection to this movement. The ‘ivory-tower elites’ are not by any means a ‘touchy-feely, out-of-touch’ group. They know EXACTLY what they’re doing. Their motivation is hatred for Western Culture and their goal is destroy it. That’s why they espouse change for its own sake: they really have no clear picture of what they want a future world to look like, or even have any definite leadership other than a few cabals bound their common hatreds. They only have a vague idea that the future will be perfect if it’s ridden of whatever they envy and despise. As far the Enlightenment thinkers go: Robespierre is really closer to their model than either Rousseau or Locke. If they came to any actual power, all of the ‘Ivory Tower’ arguments would be set aside quickly in favor of the guillotine and firing squad.

This is why they also advocate narcissism and instant gratification into the culture. These two cultural viruses play right into the hands of nihilism because they instill a victim mentality and sense of entitlement that can only be relieved (theoretically) if the existing social norms and social order are done away with. Of course, this will never be realized, so an endless supply of ‘oppressors’ have to invented and slaughtered as a distraction. This starts a vicious cycles that ends in the lowest form of savagery, which these academic dunderheads have convinced themselves is necessary to bring forth a utopia on the ruins of the old civilization.

Seeing these people for what they actually are is the best defense against them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Annonymous May 14, 2012 at 14:08

What happens when all the beating, kicking and threats to mens person, progeny and property doesn’t spurr desired reactions conditioned into them as it once did :- to work more harder, to plow more harder and to labour more harder, whilst thinking and talking less amongst themselves ?

The younger generation of men begotten by this society are a different and more fiesty breed than the passing oxen, donkeys and mules of men, whom were so easily manipulable as stooges. I smell comming a bloodbath, even Nietzsche couldn’t have imagined in his memoirs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
keyster May 14, 2012 at 14:30

That’s where Bloom is in error; by trying to trace a logical, philosophical connection to this movement. The ‘ivory-tower elites’ are not by any means a ‘touchy-feely, out-of-touch’ group.

The NWO wants to destroy all sovereign nations so a grand centralized world government will decide everything for everyone; no borders, no strife over resources, no war. This is what the Elites that run the United Nations hope to accomplish…and George Soros.

The logical connection is that there will be two distinct classes; those of the government (The Party), and everyone else. One hopes that if one promotes and adheres to Party doctrine, they curry favor with the Elite government class, that makes all the decisions. Or better yet, one is part of the government machine and therefore lives rather well. The unwashed masses NEED governing and the Elites know just how to do it.

(Those fancy medical facilities in Cuba in Michael Moore’s “Sicko”, were meant for the highest government elites only. He wasn’t permitted to see how average citizens are treated, or he never asked.)

A good example of this is that corporations who donated to the Democrat Party and unions that asked for waivers from ObamaCare were granted exclusion from having to participate. There are 1,231 to date. It’s always helpful to be on the right side of The Party.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Brendan May 14, 2012 at 14:37

I think you will find that Locke predated Rousseau somewhat.

Thanks for the correction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 14, 2012 at 15:51

@Paul Murray-

“The difficulty with the pre-enlightenment worldview is that there are, in fact, no gods. In fact. It’s better to face reality than to retreat into the comforts of fantasy.”

I could not disagree more. every great achievement of civilization is based upon imagination, not realism.

“Reality alone” would have left us sitting in the dirt, no clothes, no fire. Man’s will to create is based directly upon his imagination.

Honor, Duty, even civilization itself are imaginary constructs designed specifically to allow people to get along. Without these imaginary constructs, there is no cooperation, basically nothing worth living for… The only reality is eating, procreating, and dying when you are too old to procreate anymore. Everything else, from social cooperative constructs to human interaction, are based upon fantasy brought into the realm of actualization.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Attila May 14, 2012 at 16:28

What mind?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eric May 14, 2012 at 22:42

‘The NWO wants to destroy all sovereign nations so that a grand centralized government will control everything.’

True, but they have no idea what they’re going to do once they accomplish it. People like Sorros are idiots. They only know how to tear down and not to build. If they destroyed all national sovereignty and erected their world-government tomorrow, they couldn’t manage it. First, they’d blame ‘counterrevolutionaries’ in their own movement and liquidate them. When things fell apart, they’d blame ‘reactionary nationalists’ (i.e. patriots) in various former countries and liquidate them. Then it would be organized religion’s fault. Then, some other scapegoat.

These types of people aren’t following any philosophical school of thought; they are simply are driven by hatred of whatever exists and think that removing it will change everything for the better. The radical feminists, for example, want to subordinate and dominate men. Suppose they achieve it; then what? None of them have any viable plan for an androgynous utopia without men—they just think it will happen naturally once men disappear.

Their problem is more psychological than philosophical. 99% of the time, they simply project their own crimes onto some other group and it’s really their own consciences that they want to escape. Like Sorros wants to destroy national sovereignty and calls it evil because his own life has been one unbroken chronicle of treason to every nation he ever set foot in. The rest of the NWO nitwits and Academic Mafia are no different.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Eric May 14, 2012 at 22:54


‘The difficulty with the pre-Enlightenment worldview is that there are, in fact, no gods.’

The pre-Enlightment worldview recognized gods from the dawn of civilization onwards. What that gave them, unlike the post-Enlightment thinkers, was a system where science and philosophy were unified. There was no such thing as ‘values-neutral’ science. The split in these two disciplines has been an unmitigated curse for Western Culture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Ode May 15, 2012 at 04:53

Back to sanity…maybe just maybe women suck at this too, unless its abortion or killing their little kids.

During WW2 when the Nazi’s were operating their concentration camps it was common knowledge that some of the “best” (read cruel and brutal) prison guards were female officers. History has proven that women tend to make poor warriors because that requires putting oneself in harms way, but when it comes to being a bully and picking on defenseless people like for example prisoners in a concentration camp they can excel at it.

So yes women can be perfectly equal to men in some ways but of course it’s nothing to be proud of.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Towgunner May 15, 2012 at 09:01

@ Ode:

Great point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kyo May 15, 2012 at 09:57

“It appears that it’s almost a necessity to have two loving, caring parents who want you to succeed if you are going to perform well enough in high school to gain admission to an exclusive school.”

I’m honestly surprised that there don’t seem to be quotas mandating that since a certain percentage of children are raised by single parents (mothers), that percentage or more of incoming freshmen must also be raised by single parents.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
maxsnafu May 15, 2012 at 13:30

Re the Frankfurt School, for further info see:

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bcdad May 15, 2012 at 14:50

“If you actually go to an Ivy League school and take a poll, you will discover that almost all of the students have two parents who have been married for the entire life of the student.”
Got any sources for this, or any hard numbers?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
American May 15, 2012 at 15:02

What is happening is the modern Gender-feminist establishment have formed a sort of union with others Gender-feminists, and they simply want to “Break other patriarchies” in order for them to stay on top.
Th average loud mouth Gender-Raunch that one will find on college campuses spreading and inflaming their venom, really have little idea of what the implications are to what he/she is doing, she has just learned that the fed will give her and her groups massive pork bloating for running her loud mouth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
American May 15, 2012 at 15:11

If the new Gender-feminist establishment are so fond of matriarchy, why do thy send their children to private schools with an average 50% male teachers??? while the broken, un-educated laborers get to send their children to public schools with an average 12% male teachers??
Th truth is…. The Gender-feminist establishment understand that matriarchies equal chaos, violence, crime, and ignorance, thats why “they”.. send their children to schools with male teachers.
The christian conservative movement understands this, but will have to fight the Gender-feminist establishment tooth and nail; as Gender-feminists now have a monopoly control of main stream media.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
American May 15, 2012 at 15:25

Im not a christian conservative myself, but folks, they understand and use a basic definition of matriarchy and patriarchy that is the correct one..And that my friend is a good starting point for a real discussion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Brigadon May 19, 2012 at 09:23

I hate to say this, but the christian conservatives were the ones that actually STARTED the whole twisted feminism cycle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) May 19, 2012 at 09:28

In order to convert deb-based fiat dollars into physical wealth and property, the Federal Reserve System had to finance the destruction of the classical code of honor of Western Civilization, which exalted the Natural Rights and Property Rights of Man.

In order for your wife to get butthexed and desouled by the system and converted into a vehicle of wealth transfer by the corporate-state, a she is trained to transfer assets from good men to the central banker, the wisdom of the Great Books, which teaches “Thou shalt not steal,” and “Thou shalt not butthext,” had to be destroyed.

Follow the money people–follow the money here, and soon you shall see the financial-incentive for the deconstruction of Western Civilization.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: