The so-called moderate Enlightenment is the philosophical, social, and political movement whose leading light was the English philosopher John Locke. Despite common description of this movement as “conservative,” it was as radical in its principles and effects as the so-called radical Enlightenment, as exemplified by the French Revolution. The moderate Enlightenment promised Liberty to the masses, but in reality it was a massive bait-and-switch operation that has never delivered what it promised — anywhere, at any time — because Liberty is nothing more than the elevation of a new form of supreme political authority in the place of the old one.

Liberty has not made men free, but rather it has relentlessly opposed and driven from the life of the State the very Truth that makes men free. It is a denial of sin from disordered desire: either loving the wrong things or loving the right things in the wrong way. Instead, a rightly-ordered traditionalism reconnects man with the wisdom of his ancestors – arguing that the most important wisdom is to acknowledge God, the Logos, and that intuition is the foundation of wisdom. Intuition knows that consciousness is real, and therefore that the materialism of Enlightenment is false. The human soul is pervasively present in the universe itself. Truth is intrinsic to reality, as it is to consciousness. The point of life was to conform the soul to Reality — to harmonize with a cosmic order that exists independently of the soul, but that can be known. In the modern era, man regards what he once saw as divine order of the cosmos as, instead, inert matter to be manipulated and shaped according to man’s will and genius. What toxic culture calls freedom is truly bondage; a man has as many masters as has vices. And so-called sexual liberation is a form of political control. A nominalist position – that there is nothing natural inherent in the structure of nature, as it’s only matter, upon which humans can impose a will – is false.

The social order the moderate Enlightenment destroyed was Christendom. This society received its basic philosophical underpinnings from Greek political philosophy, particularly the understanding of man and the state as developed by Plato and Aristotle. These philosophers developed a “politics of the soul” based on the insight that the purpose of human life is the cultivation of virtue. For the Greeks, the state, arising from the society of families, is natural to man; human nature demands life in a polis. Indeed, man cannot attain the perfection of his nature except in the polis, which takes care of the soul by promoting and protecting both virtue and religion over and above mere security in person and property. Far from being an imposition on the natural order of the state, the Catholic Church perfects it by revealing the true religion that gives man the knowledge of true virtue and right theology. This “Greco-Catholic synthesis” completed, perfected, and elevated the insights of Aristotle as to the nature of both man and the state. And so the truth is not a proposition; the truth is a Person, Logos, a mode of living. The truth is not a problem to be solved but a mystery to be lived. Wisdom is how to approach suffering so that, through love, it becomes transformative and redemptive. A man’s greatest act, his true religion, is consciously to identify himself with the true, the good and the beautiful. He cannot change the world. And it’s difficult to change yourself. But, as a first step of telos to Logos, he can choose to identify with the true order of being, and the God who is its Author.

The nominalists were incorrect to contend that God existed as a category of Being, instead of God as Being itself. Unfortunately, now the nature of language, including the religious language used by believers to talk about God, veers by default in a univocal direction, as if “God” were the name of a thing, an ens, an entity within the totality of being. Nominalism served as the philosophical underpinning for the instrumentalization of the world, and the world became something for humans to use to fulfill desires. There was no transcendent natural order to obey, as humans could, supposedly, do and be whatever they wanted to do or be. Desacramentalized and denuded of God’s presence via metaphysical univocity – nominalism’s claim that God is only part of Being; that He is the highest being within the universe – the natural world would cease to be the theater of God’s grace or the playground of evil’s princeps mundi. Instead, it would become so much raw material, awaiting the imprint of human desires. This would come to be called an “objective” view of the world. Democracy and liberalism, divorced from concepts of the good, have little eschatology, vision, fulfillment, point of arrival. They are instruments of desire and power.

Public recognition of true religion is essential to a Christian order and accords with the demands of reason. Such an order requires a certain intolerance of false religion but truth is the highest common good, the good that the state exists to defend and promote. Since religion is not merely a private but a public good, governing authorities must recognize it, defend it, and promote it. Revelation of the good through Logos precedes Scripture and becomes deposited in Scripture but is not simply identical with it. Thus revelation is always greater than the written word. There is no such thing as sola sciptura because the essential element of scripture is the church as understanding subject.

It was this Greco-Catholic synthesis that the moderate Enlightenment opposed and ultimately overthrew. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, in particular, established a false understanding of nature and, in particular, human nature, from which they concluded that human society is unnatural to man. In his natural state, according to Hobbes and Locke, man lives in perfect, untrammeled liberty. It is only to protect this liberty that men, by “social contracts,” form political arrangements in which they give up certain of their “rights” in order to assure the continued possession of their most fundamental rights: life, liberty, and property.

The moderate Enlightenment established a materialistic understanding of the state. Government, arising from the consent of the governed, derives its authority only from that consent; gone is the Greco-Christian understanding that government derives its authority from Logos (God in Christ). Moreover, the purpose of government is to protect individual liberties, not, as in Christendom, the common good of society — a good both material and spiritual. The “Hobblockean” state thus proposes Liberty as the highest good of man, at least in his corporate life. It is to preserve this Liberty that men form governments and, if necessary, overthrow them when they breach the social contract.

The American Revolution, far from establishing freedom for the citizenry, only set up a new regime that was just as oppressive, if not more so, than the regime it overthrew. The American Revolution and the establishment of the U.S. government under both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were the work of a relative few in the English colonies and not expressions of universal popular consent. New governments, both state and federal, exercised raw power to enforce obedience to their demands. The federal government, from its inception, whittled away at state authority, and such federal hegemony is a logical development of the Constitution itself. During the Civil War the federal and Confederate governments, though wrapping themselves in the mantle of Liberty, nevertheless grossly violated the freedoms of their people. From its inception, the American republic labored under an oppressive government and that the Liberty it promised was but a thinly veiled exercise of power, which has devolved into bureaucratic oligarchy in the early 20th Century. This is the tradition of Locke, as the fundamental tenet of Liberty — that the securing of individual freedom, not the defense and promotion of the common good, is the chief end of government.

The fractured asylum that is the United States is a Whig commercial republic with a strong bureaucratic oligarchy, in cooperation with elite media and corporations pursuing a secularized Puritan “empire of liberty.” The United States is a regime where the idea of the common good has been swamped by the notion of individual freedom. One group of Liberals, the Left, has made great strides in realizing the reign of Liberty in the realm of sexual morality; in the name of sexual freedom we have legalized pornography, heterosexual cohabitation, same-sex marriage, contraception, and abortion. Another group of Liberals, the Right, has successfully established the principle of laissez-faire individualism in economics (which in its own way threatens the integrity of the family, traditional culture, and religion) and in the stewardship of God’s creation, as well as unfettered consumerism in the marketplace. That these Liberal factions battle each other, and have in many cases mitigated the full effect of each other’s policies, does not undermine the basic fact that, together, they have triumphed in establishing the protection and promotion of individual liberty as the guiding principle of state and society and have allowed for a wider expression of individual liberty (for good and ill) than perhaps any other society has granted its citizenry.

Since most Liberals are not anarchists, they readily admit that the preservation of individual freedom requires a balancing of individual claims to freedom; they see that freedoms can cancel each other out. Men may have, for instance, a right to freedom of expression, but that right may be restricted where it endangers the right to public safety — such as shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. The balancing of freedoms, however, implies the judgment that certain freedoms are more important and fundamental than others. The exercise of this judgment may and does result in the curtailing of freedoms that in the minds of some of the citizenry are of the highest order.

Nowhere is this truer than in the exercise of religious liberty. Americans vaunt that their Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and has assured the neutrality of the state in regard to religion. Religion has thus flourished under a regime that protects the rights of every religion while according official recognition to none. The condition of religious liberty, so goes the common account, unshackles personal religious expression and allows religion to flourish. Moreover, unlike Liberal regimes elsewhere, the U.S. respects the role of religion in society, seeing it as a necessary prop to the morality without which the state cannot flourish. To treat religion as merely a prop for civic virtue is to instrumentalize religion, to treat it as a means to an end, not an end in itself. The end religion comes to serve is a secular end as enacted by the people’s representatives of the sovereign state that brooks no rival, not even one that speaks the words of God. This new theology guarantees a wide freedom to individual religious belief and even practice, but when religious expression and practice come into conflict with the requirements of a secular society and the policies of the state, it is religion that must give way. This follows precisely from the reduction of religion to the realm of the merely private, for the private good can never trump the general welfare. Even under the First Amendment purely private belief is subject to governmental restriction whenever it conflicts with ‘neutral laws of general application.’

Unhappily the world took a wrong turn: the secularist Renaissance of the fifteenth century threw weak man on his own feeble resources; the Protestant revolt of the sixteenth, divided his soul; the Rationalism of the eighteenth, blinded it; the Liberalism and Naturalism of the nineteenth sold it to the sinister powers of matter, greedy commercialism, base pleasure, and passion. And now a harvest of dragons.

There is one strong, continuous driving force for “Enlightenment”: those claiming the title of Jewish. Antisemitism is the belief that a person, by the very existence of their biological background (Semitic), is in some way defective or inferior. But justified criticism of Jews (a theological construct), gets turned into a “racial” accusation. Anti-Jewish is resistance to the destructive ideology to all that is, as Christ and His Apostles make clear, particularly in St. John and Acts, hopelessly and inherently wicked.

The confused term “Jewish” is the enemy of the true and the beautiful. It is perpetually destructive. So what is “Jewish”? No one knows. There is no good definition, except that it is not Christian. With its atheist rabbis, its Orthodox, God-fearing rabbis, its great diversity of opinion – literally the only unifying definition is, “not Christian.” A second definition might be Tikkum Olam, which means to heal or repair the world. Practically, this means constant temporal motion and no spiritual center – revolution. There is simply no centered definition.

Antisemitism says that one is inferior due to DNA. To be anti-Jewish, however, is justifiable. A sharp division of religious worldview arose with the total destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD. Followers of Logos, “Jewish” and not, were decisively separated in religious and political terms from the crushed revolutionaries and their revolutionary descendants. No longer could a follower of Jesus of Nazareth claim the Jewish faith. From 70 AD, a reconstituted ethnic group claimed the title of “Jewish,” so much so that one could make an excellent case that Christianity is older than Judaism. However, there is a continuation of Old Testament Jewish faith and practice in light of the dramatic change of “Jewish” faith and practice. And so (Apostolic) Christianity – the bedrock of Western civilization and the unifying force of European Christendom for over a millennium – is inherently at odds with “the Jews.” (Puritans, unfortunately, as well as their many descendants such as “political correctness,” decided that “Judiazing” was a good way to serve Christ – and looked to the Old Testament that Christ fulfilled, thereby short-changing the New Testament. This started with the Hussites, priests and nuns who decided the Church was wrong on some of the Sacraments, so they could fornicate. Milton Judiazed to justify divorce. Now Israeli Zionists use foolish Christians for tourist dollars.)

So antisemitism is a form of racism that states someone is of inherently inferior moral worth by reason of biology – contemptible. To be anti-Jewish, however, is defensible. In fact, it is necessary to be a Christian, because “Jewish” has come to mean a rejection of Logos (Christ). Second, it is a matter of empirical fact that those who define themselves as Jewish have been disproportionally involved in European revolutions, to the cause of much misery. This is because “Jewish” is a revolt against Christ, who is Logos, or Reason. Insofar as a piece of Western civilization retains or reflects a Christian ethos, spirit, inspiration, or character, this rejection will encourage some degree of enmity, one of an ancient and understandable theological source. Judaism is primarily an ethnic categorization of religion, which over time can and has evolved into a racial categorization given isolation and group in-breeding. There is much debate about what constitutes the definitions of Jewish, and many arguments are acceptable – except for the claims of Messianic Judaism.

The best definition of “Jew” is not racial, but theological. To be Jewish is to be anti-Logos, an explicit rejection of Christian life. From the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, following the revolt against the Roman Empire, what emerged was Talmudic Judaism. This practiced as its chief organizing principle and defining characteristic the anti-Messianic. To be “Jewish” after 70, when the Talmud began to be organized, is to be anti-Logos, set against the teaching of St. John’s Gospel.

Christianity is therefore older than “Judaism,” and for Catholics their Catholicism is the legitimate continuation and fulfillment of ancient, sacrificial Jewish faith and practice. Only the Apostolic Christian faiths (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) have retained a temple, a sacrifice, and the priesthood, whose source and summit is the Eucharist, which is manna from heaven in fullest form (Christ). Catholicism rejects antisemitism, a position based on the biological reality of race, but it is inherently anti-Jewish because all of the many and varied theological claims of Judaism since the time of Christ have been anti-Christian.

During the life of Christ, the definition of “Jew” was fundamentally altered. “Judeo-Christian” is a term that only makes sense for a few decades from the time of Christ until the ruin of the Temple, which was predicted by Jesus and detailed by St. John’s book The Apocalypse. As Jerusalem lay in ruins following the total defeat inflicted by Titus and the Roman army, a response to the revolutionary revolts of 67-70 in Judea, an unbridgeable gap emerged among those who followed Christ and those who rejected Him while claiming they were still Jews. This gap will remain particularly acute for Catholics, who are required by the demands of their religion to understand themselves as the fulfillment of Old Testament promises. By rejecting Christ, the Savior of souls and leader of a heavenly kingdom who refused temporal glory, the newly-defined Jews embraced the revolutionary search for heaven on earth. This has been and will continue to be the root of much conflict and misery, particularly through the abuse of Eros. In reviewing this long and tragic history, several patterns are observable. These include the following points, all flowing from the rejection of Logos and the embrace of revolutionary, earthly manna as a source of salvation:

-Jews tend to be hyper-ethnocentric and to have a highly evolved out-group animus.
-Jews tend to advocate for cultural separation between themselves and the dominant majority.
-Jews tend to view themselves as distinct from the dominant majority.
-Jews tend to express a strong collectivist strategy, usually at odds with the dominant majority.
-Jews tend to engage in the self-celebratory and the revolutionary.
-Jews tend to be uneasy concerning research into genetics, though a biological inheritance underpins much that is considered “Jewish,” such as Zionism, birthright trips, and marriage.
-Jews tend to have little respect for the dominant majority and their culture, and in some cases believe them to be pathological as compared to their own communities.

In sum, there is a collective narcissism, and a high value of “equality” and “freedom.” But to what end? The misused Eros of the Sexual Revolution have made women in particular deeply unhappy, and men a slave to passion – and thus easier to control. There is also the narcissism of viewing life through the filter of collective Jewish experiences and sensibilities. This is evident in tendencies toward neurotic anxieties, persecution complexes, and a weakness for “he-who-says-A-must-say-B” verbal logic. Among the most destructive examples of such collective narcissisms were terrorist activities against the monarchies of Europe, culminating in the profound evil of Bolshevism. Messianic universalism, in the form of various temporal enthusiasms across time and environment, is a consistent pattern. By rejecting Jesus as Logos – the Reason which underpins and explains creation – the embrace of the fruitless search for secular utopia is at once continuous, nihilistic, and anti-life. It is the endless debating society of Talmudic study.

Antisemitism should be condemned, because all of humanity is of equal moral worth. Humans are inherently valuable by the virtue of their innate humanity, even as aptitudes and outcomes vary in human populatiomns. However, chosen ethnic characteristics and the actions that follow deserve to be carefully studied. To be anti-Jewish is to reject the rejection of the most important aspect of human existence – Logos. The better path is against the emptiness and fruitlessness of Talmudic discourse. It is to value Logos (reason and order), Telos (purpose and goal), and Theosis (process and end) – toward Sacramental unity. Let’s be unified, despite the inevitable disagreements, against one thing: Talmudic revolutions, the contemptible “healing of the world.” This is liberalism and feminism – an empty ugliness. To engage in judiazing is to discourse without content so as to achieve power.

The following are some common characteristics of Jewish, anti-Logos and Talmudic, behavior. Histrionics: a tendency to histrionic argument, the easy, emotional claim without regard for the intent or sincerity of the opponent. He will question motive and associations indiscriminately. Effeminacy: there is a tendency toward effeminacy in his behavior. His tone is more plaintive or whining, he loves gossip, he twists words, and he is passive-aggressive. He is cliquish and social shunning is a favored tactic. Anti-authority: even in his rabbinical tradition he prizes argument and conflict. He criticizes authority without regard to its moral salience or its practical importance to society. He peddles protest and nurses grievance, and his agitation not infrequently leads to dangerous social chaos. Deviance: he is a very effective promoter of moral deviance. He is always the first to assault social mores as unjust and outdated. He arrogantly dismisses traditional morality as mindless, or as the product of the oppressive elite. He expands the sphere of what is acceptable with social chaos again the result. His tendency to sexual deviance seems greatly elevated. Chauvinism: squabble as he will with his own, he will come to defend his group’s interests. He is so vigilant in this regard that criticism of the in-group is practically non-existent, and is the most harshly punished of heresies. While all social animals are nepotists, he is a standout; his chauvinism borders on solipsism. Pettiness and Meanness: many examples of these can be seen in comedy and entertainment in particular. Disrespectfulness: for all his promotion of multiculturalism and tolerance, he is always happy to savage the deeply held beliefs of others, Christians especially. He does not respect views much different from his own, he is contemptuous of the masses, and he often looks upon sincere displays of belief with hostility. Legalism: his legalism fulfills the shyster stereotype. He is most satisfied when he has tricked God, particularly on a technicality. Double standards: they promote diversity and fret about intermarriage. They wall off their country but very actively discourage ethno-nationalism elsewhere. Vengefulness: turning the other cheek is a moral commandment for many; but others forgive nothing and remember every grievance. He pursues vengeance even to his own detriment, with frequent quarrelsome relations toward neighbors.

Rather, all that God makes, eternal and bound by time, is made radiant by reflecting the Word (Christ as Logos) made by the Father (Power) in his Love (the Holy Spirit). how everyday phenomenon are related to the ground of their being, which is to say, God. All Creation is a reflection of the Divine Idea, the Logos, which emanates throughout Creation’s entirety. Matter mediates the radiance of the Divine. Infinite Love is the basis of reality. The Divine Light is perfect, but as filtered through matter, it is perceived imperfectly; it shines more in some places and less in others, depending on how receptive humanity is to it – existing within time, but infinitely into the future.

What creates (efficient causes) is related to the First Person, how (by what law or pattern) it creates (the formal or exemplary cause) to the Second Person, and to what end it creates (the final cause) to the Third Person. Since the three are one, one could say that nothing exists in an absolute sense except love: love may be described either as pure awareness, the power of what is to be (know itself as) all things (this power is the Father); or else it may be described as the world, all the things conscious being given being to by knowing them as itself (the Son). One could also say that ultimately nothing exists except the principle of form (the Word): the self-determination of the principle of form as this-or-that is love (the Holy Spirit); unqualified, form is pure intelligence or being (the Father). What binds the three persons together is love, all of reality is likewise bound together by love.

The natural world has lost its capacity to flawlessly transmit and reflect the Light of God. Sin is to prefer the temporal to the eternal, the finite to the infinite, the flesh to the spirit, though the flesh is not evil, but rather must be rightly ordered by the spirit. The world of appearances is deceiving. Because Nature is imperfect, divine realities mediated through it will also appear in compromised form.

There is an order of ends, a meta-empirical authority of values. Man should not be reduced to a bundle of physical needs? And yet modern societies, having taken away every order of ends and eliminated every authority of values, provide all that is left as vital energy, which can be identified with, most prominently, sexuality. The idea of indissoluble monogamous marriage and other ideas related to it (modesty, purity, continence) are linked to the idea of tradition, which in turn presupposes (as tradere means to hand down) the idea of an objective order or unchangeable and permanent truths (the Platonic True in itself and Good in itself).

All of today’s “legitimate” socio-political thought is descended from the diseased fanaticism of the North American Puritans, and thus the English Dissenters, who were superb Judaizers. Most lamentably, these are: messianism, apocalypticism, and state-sponsored usury (capitalism). Progressivism, multiculturalism, globalism, democratic deification, political correctness, and universalism are nontheistic Christian devolutions, with totalizing state expansion and bureaucratic oligarchy a pathetic substitute for the sacramental Christ. Love is the basic act and order of things. Love brings all there is into existence. It is through love that all there is continues in its existence. Reality is an order of love, and is triadic: all things are in, through, and for love. Being is an order or logic of love, which is Logos (Christ). Therefore, to live well is to live most proper to being (Logos). Reality is liturgical and sacramental. Contrary to Talmudic discourse, there is Logos, reason and order, Telos, purpose and goal, and Theosis, process and end, all toward Sacramental unity.

Antisemitism is a racial concept, hatred because of immutable and ineradicable racial characteristics. This is wrong. However, a Christian must be anti-Jewish in the sense of opposing beliefs and actions of Jews that operate as a consequence of the Jewish rejection of Christ. Many Jews try sincerely to live up to the moral law. Nevertheless, the Jews rejected Logos, the Reason for the universe and its redemption, and so rejected Christ, the Messiah, in order to support anti-Christian revolutionary movements.

This rejection of Logos has led directly to cultural subversion. There is the use of sexual imagery and propaganda as a means of psychological warfare and social control, Jewish subversion of the moral law situated centrally in the rejection of Logos, the moral and social order stemming from God and his Word, Christ. There must be a rejection of a materialistic ethos – a spiritual, cultural move to traditional moral and religious principles characterized by Logos.

Judaism has seen three distinct stages: the faith and practices chronicled in the Old Testament; a transitional period lasting a single generation – as predicted by Christ – from the resurrection of Christ in 33 to the destruction of the Temple in 70; and the many, varied forms of Logos rejection after the fall of Jerusalem.

Zionist colonization in the 19th and 20th Centuries could not have been undertaken without an ideological preparation that gave rise to the blossoming of myths. The historical construction that fueled nationalistic myths is an intrinsic part of the formation of collective consciousness throughout the modern world.

The birth of national memory begins with the resort to the fluid term “people.’ A Jewish people after 70 is united only by rejecting Christ. There was no forced exile of a Jewish people in the 1st or 2nd Centuries. There were, however, a continuous series of conversions, such as the Hasmoneans, the Yemeni, throughout the Roman Empire, and the Khazar. Further, there were many conversions in antiquity around the Mediterranean basin, conversions that the Hasmoneans imposed upon their neighbors, conversions of Adiabene in Mesopotamia, conversions of the Himyar kingdom of the southern Arabian Peninsula, and the Judaized Berbers of North Africa – particularly from the second century to the fourth.

There were considerable differences among these groups. This fact led Zionist historians to emphasize a single “ethnic” origin, one supposedly derived from ancient Hebrews. Yet most Zionists did not and do not believe in a “pure race,” even as they refer to a common biological origin as the decisive criterion for membership of a single people. There is no biological connection of ancient Hebrews to the population of the Israeli nation-state, and no evidence of a mass deportation from Judea by the Romans.

Talmudic Judaism is an expression of the rejection of Christian salvation, one often provided with a physical, political sense. Early Zionist leaders knew there was no mass exile after the destruction of the Temple and they knew of the large-scale conversions. These truths should be reclaimed in opposition of Jewish subversion of Christian life and ethics.

And sadly, it is common to “Judiaize,” to impose the superseded law on Christians, as in requiring circumcision and dietary laws, and to embrace revolutionary thought, such as to live in an economy of state-sponsored usury.

This theological construct is ever present and ever current. Jesus Christ was the Jewish Messiah, to give his Hebrew identity, and He was also the Logos incarnate, to give his Greek identity. Logos is the order and reason of the universe, and its primary mover. In rejecting the social order, which is part of the order of the universe, the Jews became revolutionaries and that has remained their identity to present day. Jewish history is littered with failed revolutionary movements, such as “Messiah” Shabbetai Zevi. The two main Jewish revolutionary movements of the 19th and 20th Century were Communism and Zionism. After the collapse of Communism in 1989, Zionism was the main revolutionary movement among Jews. Zionism was a fringe movement in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries until the British Navy decided to switch from coal to oil to fuel its fleet. At this point, Britain needed a beachhead in the Middle East, and the Jews under the leadership of the Rothschild family agreed to serve that role. Oligarchic families like the Churchills had fallen into debt to the Rothschilds over the course of the 19th century. The result was the Balfour Declaration and Winston Churchill became a willing pawn of the Jews for his entire life in exchange for debt forgiveness. The Jews stole Israel from the Palestinians and created a state of their own, but they could not have done this without the support of American Jews, who demanded that the country recognize the state of Israel in return for financial support of political action. Jews have used the issue of Israel to gradually take control of America’s foreign policy, as well as heavy and massively disproportionate influence in social and political policy through usury and gambling. Anyone who exposes this control is called an anti-semite, which used to be someone who didn’t like Jews; now it is someone Jews don’t like. The only way to be excommunicated from Judaism is Christian baptism.

Forms of materialism such as communism and usury capitalism were a primary means of “healing the world,” Tikkun Olam, the false replacement for Logos. “Scientism” is another: using the words such as science and scientific honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise; using the manners of the technical terminology of the sciences, irrespective of usefulness; preoccupation with demarcation between genuine science and imposters; a corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been successful; looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope; denigrating the legitimacy of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human endeavors such as poetry and art.