Mild criticism of Peter Duke

1600+ words

Introduction: Peter Duke of “The Duke Report SubStack thedukereport@substack.com” is one of only a handful of commentators who, on my perception, have had something original and useful to contribute in our troubled times. He writes well, and often accompanies his writing with outstanding photos & graphics; sometimes with video.

Further below I have some mild criticism of his thought, whereby I am unsure whether he is a Stoic or a Christian (whereas I am neither).

First, an outline of his approach

Duke has coined the word EpiWar, which is short for epistemological warfare, delving into how we know what we know.

He draws attention to the methods we inevitably use when we engage in grand reflections. These are deletion, distortion, and generalisation. These are also the techniques of those who seek to misdirect us. Recognising and opposing them on the spur of the moment is difficult even when on the lookout for words such as all, every, any and none.

One tell-tale sign of distortion is the use of nominalisation; that is, using a noun instead of descriptions with verbs. Nominalisation serves to obscure who did or said what, and when. (Incidentally, it is endemic in contemporary — but not Lutheran —German even more than English.)

These points are repeatedly well presented, with examples, in Duke’s writing, which I cannot improve on, so I shall leave them here.

Peter Duke also delves into history, both recent and ancient. Together with “Mrs Heritage History”, he goes back to the Phoenicians, demonstrating how structures devised millennia ago have endured.

Like the equally excellent E.M. Burlingame (https://emburlingame.substack.com/), Duke also narrates the replacement of the Stuart monarchy, which, in contrast to received opinion, he sees as heralding, with the advent of central banking and freemasonry, our present fateful dispensation. Nor does he neglect the more recent derailments with the Machiavellian machinations of our intelligence agencies.

Of particular note is his account of secrecy, symbolism, and how control by a select few can be perpetuated indefinitely. In this, the Pharisees and the Freemasons share(d) certain structures, empowering insiders and sidelining others — all in the pursuit of systemic control. This is EpiWar incarnate. (It was of course Jesus who devastated the credibility of the Pharisees, which is why they crucified him.)

Again, go to the source to see all this spelt out. I have no quarrel with anything here.

Both Duke and I see secrecy, in various guises, as the key spoiler. Contemporary with early Christianity was gnosis, which is the principle of profound knowledge being unlocked only by the chosen. Note that to become a freemason one must be invited: one cannot invite oneself.

On occasion, secrecy is necessary and justified. A case in point is the persecution suffered in England in the seventeenth century by those opposed to the ruling doctrine, whether Protestant or Catholic. They needed to be able to recognise each other, without knowing names, so resorted to the use of freemasonry symbolism. The problem is that these ploys later take on a life of their own.

The Critical Footnote

Duke proposes four human capacities that nullify systemic control: “logos (λόγος), discernment (κρίσις), reserved strength (πραΰς), and love (ἀγάπη). Logos represents rational discourse and coherent truth-telling. Krisis denotes discernment—the ability to distinguish the genuine from the simulated. Prowse [or praüs] embodies disciplined strength guided by principle rather than coercion. Agape expresses unconditional goodwill that cannot be exploited by fear or ambition.”

“Together they form an interior architecture of freedom, immune to manipulation. These virtues dismantle the psychological foundation of the circle by restoring the individual's cognitive sovereignty.”

In a more recent statement, Duke defines Agape as “love directed at the other person’s genuine interest.” This strikes me as something rather different to the first characterisation. It would seem now to resemble the attitude which I discussed in my published essays of the eighties and nineties (6500 words) —— except I would have described it as Eros, and precisely not as Agape. I took 6500 words in order to avoid deletion, distortion and generalisation.

My subject matter was how to understand Love as depicted in the English word —— therefore not what may have been meant by putative equivalents in ancient Greek.

I find Duke’s analysis of “love” as directed at the other person’s genuine interest inadequate: he has deleted and distorted too much. For a start, the other person must appreciate the love proffered as coming from another human (and not from a divine being, such as a guardian angel). It need not be reciprocated, certainly not fully, but it must be recognised.

In common usage, the English word exhibits quite enough confusion (=?= distortion, let alone deletion and generalisation) without us embarking on interpretations of ancient Greek. My contention is that the Christian tradition has distorted the word “Love” to mean what “Agape” is thought to have meant. Left untargeted, love as agape becomes nothing more than goodwill to all men, or goodwill on call. But whereas most are often deserving of forgiveness and indulgence, there is a minority committed to evil. These, who respond to love with exploitation and derision, must be faced down; some apologists may resort to the principle of “tough love,” but, on examination, this get-out phrase turns out to be evasive.

It is here that Duke’s discernment (κρίσις) becomes essential, but this is seldom mentioned in Christian thought, focussing as it does on infinite introspection. The passage beginning at John 8:7 (“throwing the first stone”) amounts to a disqualification of sinners from judging others, and since we are all sinners, none can judge others. This stance is untenable.

On the contrary, morality demands a willingness, on occasion, to correct or confront the wrongdoing of those who would do harm and to sometimes do so forceably. (See my https://www.thinking-for-clarity.com/Compass.html).

Christianity has identified evil by talk of Original Sin. I cannot be alone in finding this formulation most infelicitous. Most of all when it is preached to innocent children, who are made to feel guilty about themselves long before they can have matured morally. There is importantly also the implicit failure of the notion of Original Sin to differentiate between common human failings and wickedness in a few. The wicked, I contend, must be combatted outright, and done so in this world and not another; and be it by ordinary folk each with their own imperfections. Too many today devote their energies to their health or else their spiritual refinement when what it needed urgently are men of courage willing to fight.

(Incidentally, health is not the purpose of life: maintaining it is a struggle we all lose eventually. Hence longevity is not a goal, but the profundity which it may enable.)

The other-worldiness of Christian (and Pauline) doctrine is currently proving the undoing of supposedly Christian civilisation, unwilling to effectively defend essential traditions while thwarting remedies to the faultlines in those traditions. (One such faultline is the institution of marriage, which causes more harm than good, and yet is defended vociferously by traditionalists claiming to be Christians. See my several essays on this at https://www.thinking-for-clarity.com/)

The “infinite introspection” mentioned earlier stems from the centrality accorded sin, which is mischievously left undefined. Sin paves the way for redemption, a concept borrowed from accountancy where debts are redeemed (i.e. paid) or cancelled. A focus on personal salvation and forgiveness of one’s sins suggests or encourages a mentality of self-centeredness.

In today’s post-Christian world, for most people these notions (i.e. sin, sinfulness, redemption, salvation) have rightly been discarded. They have been replaced by “right & wrong” and by the assumption or assignment of individual responsibility where responsibility is due; by the endeavour to avoid or overcome regret or remorse, which may come in the recognition of missed opportunities; and by the battle to repair or accommodate psychological trauma.

__________

I wondered above whether Peter Duke is a Stoic or a Christian. He appeals to four (and only four) Greek concepts which were current at the time of Christ (see above). Of these he places centre-stage Agapé (discussed above) and Logos (λόγος): “Logos represents rational discourse and coherent truth-telling.” Most readers will be familiar with the opening of the Gospel according to John, where λόγος is almost always rendered as “Word”: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

As an old philosopher, and translator, I am hostile to blanket terms, which often serve only to smother. They soon contain too much deletion, distortion, and generalisation. My hostility can be framed differently: it is a rejection of reductionism: to quote G.E. Moore “Everything is what it is, and not another thing.” Reductionism occurs when, for example, morality is equated with altruism, or happiness with pleasure. Each time, words are being misappropriated.

This said, I was surprised to find Duke quoting Matthew 18:20 and rendering it as “where two or more are gathered, the logos is present” rather than "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” This is not what the biblical text says (I could not find the word λόγος in the Greek, whatever it may have been in the Aramaic Jesus spoke).

It seems to me that Peter Duke is distorting a Biblical text in order to align his otherwise viable generalisations with Christianity; this strikes me as intellectually dishonest.

Otherwise, Duke’s resort to the ancient Greek concepts of “logos (λόγος), discernment (κρίσις) and reserved strength (πραΰς)” suggests a proximity to Stoicism. His target is systemic control, which he hopes these will nullify; and he gives advice on how, in practice, they might be deployed against systemic control. I have no quarrel with this, although I remain sceptical of the prospects for success. I do not yet have any better proposals.