Saturday, May 30, 2020

Slouching Towards Statism

Sincere Latin do-gooders believe racism is a sin. And yes, there is a sin of hatred that can be named racism. But racism is a word to delegitimize many other attitudes or beliefs which may be erroneous but not necessarily sinful.

Still, many "respectable" Latins have the Yankee activist mindset that characterized the Civil Rights Movement and also of SJWs, though SJWs have taken that mindset further in seeking not only "justice" or "equality" but greater sanctions against those who disagree.

Perhaps these Latins are just naive pawns who do not understand that they are providing excuses for the state to have greater power to eradicate wrong-think and freedom, even if that freedom is exercised in a way with which these moralists disapprove. Don't be a dupe for mass politics or mass movements, even if they claim to be promoting principles with which you agree, whether it be "equality," or "the common good." First determine whether you actually embody these principles in your own lives and in your relations with others, and if you don't, figure out whether you are a hypocrite or whether you have a good reason for not doing so.

Is this just the beginning of more orchestrated violence for the summer? I don't know, but statements such as the USCCB's will not do anything to fix the problem, not when many of the bishops perhaps caved too quickly to the civil authorities in closing their churches. Without liturgical services and the meeting of their community, what sort of basic witness can they provide to their non-Catholic neighbors as an "institution"? How many of these peacemakers would be willing to go out to take a stand against antifa and the destruction of property?

CWR/CNA: ‘Racism is not a thing of the past’ – US bishops respond to George Floyd killing

Here's the press statement: Statement of U.S. Bishop Chairmen in Wake of Death of George Floyd and National Protests

Had Rarely Seen This Greeting IRL

and some might even consider it an urban legend. But here is an example of "fellow white people"...

From HK to Canada

Glory Days No More

Just one of the last gasps of a dying civilization living in denial.

Lot of SJW considerations driving how this is being presented, so I am surprised that the two astronauts are older white men.

Bloomberg QuickTake
The Sun
The Independent

The Telegraph

NASA Livestream
Watch a SpaceX rocket blow up during abort test


Another nuAmerican at Work

Uhmerica Everywhere

Alt-Lite Turning...?

Smith & Wesson Thowing Axes


Throwing knives too...

Rab Phantom Pull-On


Backpacker Editor's Choice 2020

Friday, May 29, 2020


Spyderco - designed with the help of Kelly McCann?

Related: Kembativz

Ellen McCormack

She ran for president but wasn't feminist. Hm.

Henry George Reviews The Strange Death of Europe


A Member of the Silent Generation Speaks

Paul Craig Roberts: Where Did My World Go?

One Narrative

Possibly incomplete.

From 2016:
The Atlantic: How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul by Matt Stoller
In the 1970s, a new wave of post-Watergate liberals stopped fighting monopoly power. The result is an increasingly dangerous political system.

Russians Singing Appalachian Style "Christ is Risen"

A Fix for the Symptom, Not the Disease

The disease which is the state and its mass population centers, with the cult of multiculturalism and diversity...

Hastening Rather Than Delaying?

Will COVID-19 Delay Peak Oil? by Alice Friedemann (Resilience)


How Many Will Be Able to Leave?

And will the CCP move in quickly to prevent people from leaving?


Hard Times Create Strong Men

Real Estate coach, now men's coach -- two hustles, not just one...

And he was a speaker for the nu21c:

Is his book worth reading? I'll check out the videos at least, since they're free.

How Seriously Does Taiwan Take Such Threats?

ZeroHedge: Top China General Says Attack On Taiwan An Option If No Other Way To Stop Independence


Celebrating the Displacement of Men

USAF Extends Uniform Deadline

Too Old to Be THOTS

They may have some sensible things to say... but it's just another hustle in the hustle economy. It would be better to do something constructive with respect to their actual life goals, family, community, whatever.

Who's Going to Control It? Not You or Other Latin Integralists.


Interview with Jeff Sessions

AmConMag: Right Now Interview: Jeff Sessions on Trump, Tuberville, and Free Trade ‘Religion’ by Arthur Bloom

The Fall of Constantinople

But Franks are gonna be Franks and promote their fiction...

This one was better:


"Because everyone should belong!"

Mass population centers lead to their own downfall, and SJWs just accelerate this. Don't count on others to rescue you from the mess that you mishandled.

More Hustling in the Hustle Economy

When the collapse accelerates, learning to code won't be an option.

The Libtard Solution

The solution is to permit the rise of organic communities which will police themselves through a common culture, standards of behavior, and virtues. That won't solve the crime problem, but it will allow communities to separate themselves from the mess that the state has created.

Educing Ivan Illich: Reform, Contingency and Disestablishment by John Baldacchino

Peter Lang

President Tsai in Causeaway Bay Bookstore in Taipei

Greek Traditional Lamentation for the Fall of Constantinople

Summerland... How many checkboxes?

Anti-Christian, interracial lesbian romance, "educating" the youth...

Armor and Plate Carriers


許靖韻 x 林奕匡 - 別為我好(你未夠好版)Studio version

An Interview with the Provincial Superior of ICKSP

Crisis: ‘The Love of Tradition Brings People Together’ by Francis Lee

YT Channel

Thursday, May 28, 2020

The Mayor of Toronto

Putting Women at the Center of Attention

Another Cantowitch in Uniform

On the Anti-Racism Bandwagon

Rhodesian SAS

Not the Right Sort of Humanitarian Aid

While it is good for the UK to be doing something about members of their former colony, refuge with limited rights would have been preferable to a pathway to citizenship. I am concerned that HKers moving to the UK will be exploited by the revolutionaries to further undermine the UK.


Civic nationalism is a fantasy and a tool for oppression. Just because Uncle Sam's jackboot is on both of our necks doesn't mean I have anything else in common with you...

Originalism: Webster Over Calhoun?

Law & Liberty: The Legal U-Turn by Ilan Wurman

What’s more, I would say that on the rare occasion when the public meaning diverges from the legal meaning, the public meaning probably ought to prevail. Consider the following example. In 1840, Congress debated whether its power to make uniform bankruptcy laws included the power to provide for debtor relief. The problem was that in England, bankruptcy and insolvency were legal terms of art—and the former referred only to the body of law existing for the protection of creditors, the latter to the body of law existing for the relief of debtors. The U.S. Constitution, of course, confers power on Congress only over bankruptcy and not insolvency. Thus Senators John C. Calhoun of South Carolina and Richard Henry Bayard of Delaware argued that federal lawmakers did not have the power to enact debtor relief because the sense of the term “bankruptcy” was to be taken from its legal history.

Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts disagreed. The ordinary public understanding is what counts. The term in question is, said Webster, to be taken in its “common and popular sense—in that sense in which the people may be supposed to have understood it when they ratified the Constitution.”[5] Congress agreed and enacted the insolvency provisions. Although the statute was soon repealed, when Congress subsequently enacted bankruptcy laws, its power over insolvency was never again questioned.

Webster’s point makes intuitive sense, and is in line with what several Framers thought when it came to interpreting the Constitution. As James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson: “The legitimate meaning of the [Constitution] must be derived from the text itself,” and external evidence “must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned and proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the authority which it possesses.”[6]

Wurman is just advancing a POV that has been held by other "scholars" of the Constitution: Webster over Calhoun. But was Webster  a better "originalist"?

To be fair: was the division between the legal meaning and public meaning of bankruptcy already evident during the drafting of the Constitution? We're not talking about what was understood in 1840, we're talking about what was understood in 1787 to 1790. What historical or linguistic evidence did Webster have to make that claim? 

Not About Steve Bannon

As it gives insight into the author instead.

AmConMag: The Mystical Steve Bannon by Rod Dreher

Benjamin R. Teitelbaum: War For Eternity: Inside Bannon’s Far-Right Circle of Global Power Brokers

RD: In the Traditionalist framework, at least as interpreted by Bannon and Olavo, virtue resides in the ordinary people, those shut out from elite circles and institutions. They are supposed to be the repository of true spiritual values. How realistic is this, though, even in Traditionalist terms? In the US, the working class is less religiously observant than the middle class. I understand the trad-populist criticism of the spiritual corruption of the elites, and share a lot of it, but I can’t see solid ground for this valorization of the People. It sounds to me more like an ideological abstraction, the way the Bolsheviks instrumentalized the “Masses,” and the Nazis used “das Volk.”

BT: Yes, in those latter cases you see either a descriptive or a prescriptive vision for treating one part of a population as definitive of the whole. These populations have typically been abstractions and imaginations—the accusation against romantic nationalists, to say nothing of the Nazis, was that they had invented the integral “folk” of the countryside that populated their stories and paintings and songs, just as Marxists had marched off to find a proletariat when such a neatly defined population seldom existed. Most original Traditionalists saw instead the priestly elite as being the “culture makers” of society, the ones who ought shape the masses according to their own ideals.

In Bannon’s and Olavo’s upended version we see something that looks more like standard romantic nationalism à la Herder, where a sector of society deemed most insulated from the corruption of modernity (often rural, less formal education, stationary) was viewed as a vessel for timeless values and identity. And the question to those romantics would be the same to Bannon, and it’s the question you pose: on what grounds do you speak of those people as a whole, and how are you sure they possess the qualities you think they do?

Does Bannon know more about red America than Teitelbaum?

RD: I happened to be reading your book at the same time as Modris Eksteins’ 1986 history of modernism, Rites of Spring. Eksteins says that just prior to World War I, Germany thought of itself as the champion of true spiritual values, and Britain (as well as France) as exponents of a civilization that placed primacy on money-making and materialism. We know too what the Nazis did with the same general concept. There really are solid historical grounds to worry about a recrudescence. That said, the critique Team Bannon makes of the emptiness of commercial society, and modernity’s capacity to dissolve national and cultural particularity, is both solid and appealing. Can you imagine a way in which political actors could advance the best part of Traditionalism — defending local and national cultures from absorption into the globalist mass — without succumbing to the wicked parts?

BT: Here you are asking me to speak for myself rather than for the people I studied, but I’ll try to work with the question: I think people stand the best chance of deriving something good from Traditionalism when they treat it, not as a guide for action, but instead as a narrative to inspire new analyses of society, which thereafter might function as a basis for action.

In particular I wonder whether there isn’t a place for pondering a chain of correspondences the school proposes, namely, that the most meaningful commonality held by the modern political left and right is their peculiar focus on economics; that the relative disinterest in immaterial aspects of social life might be at the root of our tacit aversion to allowing people and communities to be meaningfully different from one another; that the insistence on building community based on visions of a shared future rather than a shared past—which has so many obvious virtues and which is a near necessity in countries like the United States—underestimates the importance that narratives of a common history play in forging social solidarity.

I think the “wickedness” of Traditionalism comes, not only from the content of the hierarchies it sometimes proposes (race, gender, etc.), and not only from the way it could encourage us to ignore or relish contemporary hardship, but also because of what it doesn’t say—the fact that its grand narrative of human history and the battle of good and bad leaves so much unspecified. Those empty spaces can and have been filled with demagoguery. One way to avoid this is to not subscribe to Traditionalism as religion, of course, but to allow its occasional, qualified insights to live in a wider complex of values and agendas—including those it maligns.

"Liberalism is a big tent that can tolerate many different views, so long as they don't step over the lines the state makes at our behest."

Why does Teitelbaum have the need to portray himself as a defender of liberalism?
RD: I’ve been corresponding with a national journalist who is trying to understand why some American conservatives (like me) are drawn to Hungary’s Viktor Orban. This journalist is a liberal, and can only see Orban as a villain. I’ve tried to explain that people like me certainly don’t endorse everything Orban does, but we see in him a figure of resistance to George Soros and what Soros stands for. That is, Soros is the epitome of a wealthy, influential globalist who believes localist and nationalist institutions and narratives are problems to be solved. I wouldn’t expect a Western liberal to support a politician like Orban, but tell me, why is it so difficult for Western liberals to grasp that politicians like Orban appeal to deep longings in people — for, as you put it, “community, diversity, [and] sovereignty,” that cannot be reduced to “racism”?

BT: I think it is common to fear complex portrayals of people who threaten you, and the liberal left is certainly afraid of Orban (as am I to an extent, I must admit): his transformation of election processes, his treatment of the media, and his self-proclaimed opposition to liberal democracy, etc. I’m not telling you or your readers anything new in noting how that last piece in particular—Orban’s opposition to liberal democracy—is disqualifying to many Western commentators.

But the added feature here is that he personifies a cause that can appear ascendant in global politics. That prompts some commentators to move from mere criticism to war, and thereby to the realm of us-versus-them thinking, of black and white, of telling people that they are either part of the solution or part of the problem. Muddy those waters with talk of qualifications, contingencies, and parallel interpretations, and—the reasoning seems to go—you can as well be an apologist for the enemy. And when confronted with an unexpected or strange account of someone like Orban—one, say, framing him as a right-wing force for localism and community rather than libertarian individualism—and you’d be lucky to be called “politically incoherent” as Thomas Chatterton Williams recently put it. More likely the instinct will be to accuse you of fashioning a façade to obscure what, allegedly, matters most.

Part of me gets this as a political strategy. I understand theoretically why someone would say that the political stakes are so high these days that a line-in-the-sand tactic might be needed to mobilize. What I want at a minimum, however, is for people to be honest with themselves if they choose this path. I want them to recognize that dividing the world in all-or-nothing terms, adopting and strenuously maintaining uniform definitions of each other and cultivating fear and contempt for inconsistency and the unorthodox constitutes self-imposed ignorance; a subordination of inquiry and knowledge for the sake of political expediency.
"Creating opposition is bad! Unity!" We can also throw in, "Identity politics for me, but not for thee!" Who is dividing the world in "all-or-nothing" terms? This is not about "definitions," this is about group identities. Teitelbaum is merely posing as a defender of liberal rationalism, while he distorts those whom he claims to be portraying "honestly" as a "researcher."

One can see why liberalism and civic nationalism are platforms for non-natives to rally behind to weaken and subvert the majority.

Teitelbaum is a half-Pharisee who is interested in "far right" and "ethnonationalist" movements? Such fringe movements are psychological maladies to be diagnosed?

Check out this review of his Lions of the North: Sounds of the New Nordic Radical Nationalism by Cathrine Thorleifsson

Bacevich's Collection of "Conservative" Writings

Interview with Andrew Bacevich.

There's actually more than one neocon: Michael Novak is included, and Fr. Neuhaus is a neocon-sympathizer. No paleoconservatives, though James Burnham is included. Straussian Jaffa is also included. If this is "American conservatism," then I'm out.

"Anticommunism" of the American Empire

Hobbies for Intellectuals

Hillbilly Thomists: Quarantine Sessions

Latin Marriage Summit

A list of those involved here.

For many of the prominent Latins involved with Latin mass media, the husband has blue-pill ideals concerning marriage, and this is especially true of the TOB people. No non-Latins as far as I am aware.

Constables Karen

Lord Have Mercy

The Guardian

Flash Gordon

Deliver Us From Evil 다만 악에서 구하소서


Wednesday, May 27, 2020


and female emotional fragility. A follow-up to this post.

Japanese Netflix star Hana Kimura likely took her own life using toxic gas

I have no doubts that the Asian-American news reporter either thinks of herself as a feminist and as being equal to a man, or else she has not rejected such views even if she doesn't self-identify as a feminist. In that case, she should adhere to the male standard of stoicism, and if she can't, then she is her own argument against feminism.

Now, ideological feminism has infiltrated to Japan, though not to the same degree as Anglophone countries yet. Did Hana Kimura self-identify as a feminist? Did she believe in girl power? I don't know, and she probably recognized that being a wrestler was more about entertainment than actual combat. Her apparent suicide notes have not been disclosed to the public, as far as I know, but her other messages appear to be typically Japanese and feminine.

Let's stop pretending male and female psychology are the same, that male and female moral agency are the same, that male and female capabilites, are on average, are the same. God knows the number of women who are casualties to the lies of feminism and the devil.

Kyrie eleison.

Generation Z Representatives?

but not alt-r. A combined following of 13 million.

I assume their fan base is mostly younger teenaged girls or tweens, the sort of audience who likes boy bands and other physically immmature or not yet masculine-looking males, but who knows these days.

A SoCon Essay

Some parents do deserve blame for not raising their daughters properly, or even promoting a life of casual sex and promiscuity. But what of feminism and careerism? And this essay seems to downplay the agency of the young women themselves. What about their own poor choices?

Big Pimping by Peachy Keenan

Jaffa as the Embodiment of Enlightened Liberal Rationalism

Cuckservative virtue-signalling galore.

Understating the Scope of the Problem

Does classical liberalism, that is a liberal political (dis-)order, create conditions that undermine it? A thorough answer would have to address the role of the oligarchs and the elites and other causes that are destructive of culture, community, and identity. The Anti-Federalists were correct in their intuitions, though perhaps they were not cognizant of the severity of the problems of interpretation with regards to that particular document, the Constitution, and the difficulty of preserving a common republican and federalist tradition.

Azerrad's essay is good in so far as it questions liberalism, but he doesn't name names, and the history he provides is too short, focusing only on the Boomers for the decline, and he doesn't seem to recognize this.

Liberalism’s Genetic Predisposition by David Azerrad

Beckwith Responds to Thompson

Not Your Daddy’s Classical Liberalism by Francis J. Beckwith

Because the habits of some “Nietzscheanized right-wing nihilists,” as Thompson labels them, along with many other sub-groups these days, do not cultivate in the soul the proper conditions for freedom, individualism, and the pursuit of happiness, what results is not a free people who are capable of limited self-government and participating with moral integrity in a market economy, but rather, a mob of “independent” minds enslaved by their own unruly appetites. It is clear that Thompson recognizes this. Otherwise, he would not lament the threat that this nihilistic movement poses to the future of American conservatism.
A rather judgmental lot, are we?

I share Thompson’s affection for the founders and classical liberalism, as well as his loathing of the alt-Right nihilists.

Have either of these two academics meet a "alt-right" person in real life?

Liberals Embarrass Themselves

and C. Bradley Thompson should be criticized, but Latin integralism offers no practical program. Unfortunately, given their indoctrination into liberal and SJW values, it is unlikely that the intelligent young to which Ahmari refers could actually integrate into a true community in red America. Eventually the Yankee scold would take possession of them. Let them keep dreaming while they inhabit blue mass population centers.

The American Mind

Just Following Their Mission in Life


Individualism, Community, and Moral Obligation in the Hebrew Bible by Ilan Wurman

Unlike Berman’s egalitarian and communitarian reading of the Exodus, Hazony’s work shows a hierarchical difference between different roles in the Israelite community, and highlights the individual independence the Exodus created. The ethical teaching of the Bible, Hazony claims, emerges from the distinction between two archetypes in the Bible: the life of the farmer and the life of the shepherd. God eminently prefers the shepherds.

Cain toils and works the land—as God had commanded man to do after the Fall—and even initiates the offering to God. Yet God prefers Abel’s offering from his flock.

Abraham is born and grows up in Ur, the heart of Babylonian civilization, but God sends him to Canaan to be a shepherd at the ripe age of seventy-five. Abraham also challenges and questions God.

Moses, of course, frees himself from the shackles of Egypt to become a shepherd and then frees his people. The life of the shepherd, Hazony argues, is one in which the shepherd “resists with ingenuity and daring, risking the anger of man and God to secure improvement for himself and for his children.” It is a life of “dissent and initiative, whose aim is to find the good life for man, which is presumed to be God’s true will.” The life of the farmer, on the other hand, represents a life “of pious submission, obeying in gratitude the custom that has been handed down.”

Hazony summarizes this ethic:

The nomads have what is more precious to them than all else—independence: Political independence in that they live as nomads, ungoverned, their labor and their property and their actions unregulated and untaxed by anyone other than themselves; ethical independence in that their vantage point and the freedom and dignity of their work allow them to focus on what truly matters—the proximity of all men to danger, error, and death, and the consequent responsibility they must take for discovering the true course for themselves and acting on it.

Public Discourse promoting Judaeo-Christianity. Of course the think-tank is useless.

Pharisees redefining "conservatism" and "nationalism" and "Constitutionalism" too... what could possibly go wrong?


The Rabbis assume that a niggling detail of the laws of Shabbat can engender a conversation about the ideals of manhood and even about humanity’s ultimate destiny. The reverse is equally true. Assessing the ideal man, or the value of human wisdom, or the goals of a legal system, is inextricably tethered to the small matters of halakhic observance. In tying these ideas together, the Talmud imparts a claim that is alternately maddening and compelling: that the starting point for human exploration and self-actualization is that man stands commanded to live by God’s Torah. The rest, as it were, is commentary.

Anyone to Represent an Anti-Federalist POV?

I doubt it.

KoCs Will Be Happy

But how many of them will be around in 10 years? Did they have any success with their last recruitment drive?

Socons Gliding Through Irrelevancy

How are Southern Baptists doing these days? What are Southern Baptists doing to keep the SJW convergence out?

But hey, at least Public Dicscourse still has a place in the hustle economy, right?

The Case for a Strong Central Government

or a common good oligarchy? Get real.

More from CASSE on Planet of the Humans

Dangers for Small Farmers

Impatient But Without the Theological Acumen

A Laughable Endorsement

Who's Backing The Epoch Times?

The Errors of Liberalism

via Rod Dreher - Amanda Ripley, Complicating the Narratives:

I’m embarrassed to admit this, but I’ve been a journalist for over 20 years, writing books and articles for Time, the Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal and all kinds of places, and I did not know these lessons. After spending more than 50 hours in training for various forms of dispute resolution, I realized that I’ve overestimated my ability to quickly understand what drives people to do what they do. I have overvalued reasoning in myself and others and undervalued pride, fear and the need to belong. I’ve been operating like an economist, in other words — an economist from the 1960s.

For decades, economists assumed that human beings were reasonable actors, operating in a rational world. When people made mistakes in free markets, rational behavior would, it was assumed, generally prevail. Then, in the 1970s, psychologists like Daniel Kahneman began to challenge those assumptions. Their experiments showed that humans are subject to all manner of biases and illusions.
So even though all human beings are rational, it does not mean that they exercise rationality equally or in the same way. And we should not ignore the role that emotion, both in good and bad ways, can affect our judgment and reasoning.

Researchers have a name for the kind of divide America is currently experiencing. They call this an “intractable conflict,” as social psychologist Peter T. Coleman describes in his book The Five Percent, and it’s very similar to the kind of wicked feuds that emerge in about one out of every 20 conflicts worldwide. In this dynamic, people’s encounters with the other tribe (political, religious, ethnic, racial or otherwise) become more and more charged. And the brain behaves differently in charged interactions. It’s impossible to feel curious, for example, while also feeling threatened.

In this hypervigilant state, we feel an involuntary need to defend our side and attack the other. That anxiety renders us immune to new information. In other words: no amount of investigative reporting or leaked documents will change our mind, no matter what.

Intractable conflicts feed upon themselves. The more we try to stop the conflict, the worse it gets. These feuds “seem to have a power of their own that is inexplicable and total, driving people and groups to act in ways that go against their best interests and sow the seeds of their ruin,” Coleman writes. “We often think we understand these conflicts and can choose how to react to them, that we have options. We are usually mistaken, however.”

Once we get drawn in, the conflict takes control. Complexity collapses, and the us-versus-them narrative sucks the oxygen from the room. “Over time, people grow increasingly certain of the obvious rightness of their views and increasingly baffled by what seems like unreasonable, malicious, extreme or crazy beliefs and actions of others,” according to training literature from Resetting the Table, an organization that helps people talk across profound differences in the Middle East and the U.S.
Can journalism be salvaged with the lessons/strategies that Ripley puts forward? Not the MSM, I don't think, and it shouldn't. The press is an instrument for shaping opinion, not just reporting fact, and an instrument that the few or the elites would rather have under their control, and if they mean to produce conflict, they will produce conflict. Would there still be promotion of conflict in a small-scale political community? First, information would not be through someone making a living reporting the news, though it may be second-hand or third-hand or fourth-hand rather than first-hand. But in the case of serious disputes, this would not be addressed by "public opinion" or the swaying of "public opinion" to one side or the other, but by the community, either through a designated authority or some other recognized intermediary. The modern press is parasitical on oversized population centers and rarely fulfill the task that they claim to be serving.

What's Her Husbands SSH Status?

HKPF at Work

THOTs for Cuckservatism

The GOP Strategy

Uhmerican women getting on the populist bandwagon.

Blue-Pill Roman Catholicism

This is why Latins lose the culture war, because they can't get the authority of the husband right. Both Matt Fradd and Scott Hahn would probably be safely described as beta.

Comments follow:

【專訪】催淚彈與枯枝 我們與死亡的距離 — 2020 人權藝術獎得主袁錦華

A Liberal Trumpets Individualism Against Aristotle

An excerpt from Danford’s Roots of Freedom: A Primer on Modern Liberty, which is apparently out of print.

Haidt Without a Solution

From 2018: Polarised: The psychology of tribalism, with Jonathan Haidt (alt)