|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 23, 2018 22:38:19 GMT
Have just been reading Charles Clover's BLACK NIGHT, WHITE SNOW - an account of Eurasianism and its present links to the Kremlin. A few points come to mind: (1) The extent to which someone like Alexander Dugin combines beatnik culture (containing a nasty dose of occultism) with appeals to Russian nationalism (in a form heavily influenced by the European Far Right) and Orthodoxy (in forms of folk-religion heavily overlapping with paganism; this combination has a fairly long history among the fragmented sects of Old Believers, and Dugin is officially an Old Believer). This strikes me as having affinities to the fever swamps of sedevacantism. The pre-1914 Silver Age is the seedbed for a lot of this; it is disconcerting, for example, to see how close Solovyev was to elements of this milieu. (2) The ways in which the Eurasianists were taken up by elements within the government structure looking for explanations of what they are to do when official ideology ceases to convince, and how they in turn appeal to recruits by spreading hints about their shadowy links to the centres of power. I can't see that happening in the West absent another major societal crisis (which I fear is a possibility) - though there may be parallels to this in postwar Italy, and perhaps Bannon's links to Trump are a mini-example. (3) The postmodern ways in which they play with dark stories and do so with a smirk on their face so they can disavow them if challenged on the facts. A lot of American popular culture about conspiracism does this - THE X FILES used to do it all the time - and the more I see it the more dangerous this seems. (4) The combination of hatred for the USSR when it was there with nostalgia after it is gone - a lot of the interwar nostalgia for the Hapsburg empire (as expressed by those who had experienced it, rather than those who glamourise it decades or a century on) is of this type. I must read Joseph Roth and see how they compare: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Roth(5) The specifically Russian elements - the position of Russia on the great and easily invaded steppes, and the perennial argument about whether Russia is or should be "really" European or Asiatic.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 10, 2018 16:44:43 GMT
Rod Dreher comments on a FIRST THINGS article which argues that the alt-right are more intellectually serious - and more dangerous - than commonly realised. Some points come to mind: (1) The influence of neopaganism going back to Spengler, with its view that Christianity is either an oriental import undermining European culture, or an European religion founded in the Middle Ages which should get back thereto. Actually this is older than Spengler - it sounds very like what Maurras was saying c.1900, and it really brings out just how dangerous and insidious the Maurrasian temptation was; it incorporated both a sense of being superior to the sheeple (this BTW is why Maurras never went so far as to pretend to be a Catholic even when it would have been politically advantageous - pride; his explicit misogyny and cruelty also come from the same stable) and its own street gangs, the Camelots du Roi, whose pride and sense of solidarity was based on engaging in street fights with political opponents. Evola's occultism was in one sense very different from Maurras (who prided himself on his rationality and saw occultism as a semitic swamp) but the same impulse to self-deification and contempt for the lower castes (I use the term quite literally, he praised the caste system) lies behind both men. I remember coming across some Third Position literature (which is basically Evola disguised in a few traditionalist Catholic trappings) in my mid-20s, when I had learned enough to recognise it for what it was (not that I had heard of Evola and Co then, but I knew enough to recognise it as fundamentally unChristian and crypto-nazi) and to realise that if I had come across it some years earlier I might have been fooled by it. The mediaeval image of Christian chivalry was intended to try to civilise something which already existed -the culture of the elite warband around the chieftain. The romantics read the Christian idealisation of what it ought to be as describing what it actually was. Quite recently I was reading a late essay by Newman's official biographer Wilfrid Ward which argued that the atrocities committed by the German army in WWI reflected the late and consequently superficial conversion of Prussia, while the English were influenced by the Christian chivalry represented by the Black Prince, who waited at table on his prisoners. The trouble with this argument is that the Black Prince's chivalric code only applied to knights and noblemen - he was a systematic practitioner of scorched-earth warfare aimed at starving out enemy armies by devastating the countryside, leading to mass slaughter and starvation of the peasantry. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauch%C3%A9e The question is how far does the attempt to Christianise this sort of culture make things better,and how far does it lead to Christianity itself being morally compromised? (This is not BTW a million miles from the question of whether the Church in Ireland in identifying with nationalism to the extent it did was standing up for justice or being corrupted by tribalism.) This post is very disjointed and I have other things to do, so I'll break off here for the time being. www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/christians-take-the-alt-right-seriously/
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 10, 2018 18:45:41 GMT
I think the First Things article in question makes a big error-- it starts off discussing some thinkers who inspired the Alt Right, and then it proceeds to anaylse those ideas as though it was analysing the Alt Right itself.
It's like a critique of Nazism based on Thus Spake Zarathustra, or a critique of modern liberalism based on a reading of Herbert Spencer.
I think the Alt Right is a lot less intellectualized and a lot less theoretical than these two articles suggest. The Alt Right is reacting to contemporary trends, not developing the logic of long-dead thinkers. It's very un-literary, for the most part. All the Spengler and Evola stuff is mostly just name-dropping.
Rod Dreher calls Richard Spencer "evil". Is this really warranted? Some of his ideas are evil, yes. But abortion is evil, and yet we don't call every pro-choice advocate "evil". Marxism is evil, but we don't call every Marxist "evil".
I think Dreher is ABSOLUTELY on the ball in diagnosing the central appeal of the Alt Right-- they are squaring up to political correctness like nobody else, except a few internet-based thinkers on the libertarian side (like Milo Yiannapolous, Sargon of Akkad, and our own Dave Cullen).
I firmly believe that political correctness is destroying Christianity in the West and will continue to do so until Christians start aggressively rejecting it and confronting it. Whether the failure of Christianity and mainstream conservatism to stand up to PC will lead to coninual gains for the Alt Right, I don't know. My guess is that the Alt Right is going to morph into something else over time. It's composed of too many young people to really have legs, in my view.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 10, 2018 22:32:42 GMT
I think you're a bit off the ball here, Maolseachlainn. First of all, it's quite legitimate to analyse a tradition by reference to its founding thinkers even if present-day practitioners are unaware of them, both because their intellectual descendants have often internalised their assumptions without being aware of their sources, and because the founders will often be more upfront about the implications of their ideas and the history of how their ideas worked out in practice often says something about the implications of those ideas. It would be a bad idea to analyse Nazism SOLELY by reference to Nietzsche, but there certainly was an influence, and any study of Nietzsche has to address it. (Similarly, I know of free-market thinktanks which reprint Herbert Spencer.) Spengler's idea of cultures as self-contained units which rise, compete and decline is very popular on the neo-nazi fringe (because of its assumption that cultures don't really mix and attempts to do so are a sign of decadence. Evola is very widely read on the Italian far right and further afield among nazi neo-pagans (and neo-nazis like to trawl for followers among seekers after "hidden knowledge" in the belief that "flying saucers from Atlantis" types are potentially open to believing in holocaust denial). I recently read a study of Russian Eurasianism and was startled by the extent to which Alexander Dugin uses Evola's terminology - Dugin was close to Benoist who is a major guru in his own right. I should say I know this stuff only from secondary material - life is too short and this stuff just too evil to go into it in any more depth than you have to. Most of the alt-right rank and file may be trolls but a core know exactly what they are doing. This profile of Richard Spencer and his conscious use of nazi terminology is very revealing www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/his-kampf/524505/
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 7, 2018 21:29:34 GMT
Good video from Roger Buck in which, amongst other things, he touches on the topic of the Alt Right. While making it very clear he doesn't identify with them, he acknowledges that they have something important to say-- in particular, their critique of the modern tendency towards endless abstraction, where any kind of particularism is taboo for fear of offending somebody. I don't want to put words in his mouth; watch the video. He's not only talking about the Alt Right, but the New Right. (He completely rejects their racialism, as do I.) It's extraordinary that today, amidst all the talk of dialogue, there's no dialogue allowed with the Alt Right, or with cultural libertarians such as Milo Yiannapoulous-- which I think should be taken as indication that they are saying something really significant. I believe the Alt Right are the crest of a wave that, almost certainly, is going to keep rising-- the political correctness of our society is not sustainable, as it is an outright rejection of reality and human nature.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Aug 8, 2018 9:07:06 GMT
Good video from Roger Buck in which, amongst other things, he touches on the topic of the Alt Right. While making it very clear he doesn't identify with them, he acknowledges that they have something important to say-- in particular, their critique of the modern tendency towards endless abstraction, where any kind of particularism is taboo for fear of offending somebody. I don't want to put words in his mouth; watch the video. He's not only talking about the Alt Right, but the New Right. (He completely rejects their racialism, as do I.) It's extraordinary that today, amidst all the talk of dialogue, there's no dialogue allowed with the Alt Right, or with cultural libertarians such as Milo Yiannapoulous-- which I think should be taken as indication that they are saying something really significant. I believe the Alt Right are the crest of a wave that, almost certainly, is going to keep rising-- the political correctness of our society is not sustainable, as it is an outright rejection of reality and human nature. Maolsheachlann, saying that the Alt-Right have something important to say is like saying that the Nazis (or Marie Stopes or Margaret Sanger) had something important to say: it misses the point completely. There's a good reason why the Alt-Right are beyond the pale: they are openly racist or worse, they believe in eugenics, (I know the left have a blind spot on this, but two wrongs don't make a right), and in many cases they actually advocate abortion for non-whites. If we have to resort to taking pointers from them, the battle is already lost and allying with them on the basis of the enemy of my enemy is my friend will only destroy any chance of a revival of Catholicism in this country.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 8, 2018 10:21:12 GMT
Good video from Roger Buck in which, amongst other things, he touches on the topic of the Alt Right. While making it very clear he doesn't identify with them, he acknowledges that they have something important to say-- in particular, their critique of the modern tendency towards endless abstraction, where any kind of particularism is taboo for fear of offending somebody. I don't want to put words in his mouth; watch the video. He's not only talking about the Alt Right, but the New Right. (He completely rejects their racialism, as do I.) It's extraordinary that today, amidst all the talk of dialogue, there's no dialogue allowed with the Alt Right, or with cultural libertarians such as Milo Yiannapoulous-- which I think should be taken as indication that they are saying something really significant. I believe the Alt Right are the crest of a wave that, almost certainly, is going to keep rising-- the political correctness of our society is not sustainable, as it is an outright rejection of reality and human nature. Maolsheachlann, saying that the Alt-Right have something important to say is like saying that the Nazis (or Marie Stopes or Margaret Sanger) had something important to say: it misses the point completely. There's a good reason why the Alt-Right are beyond the pale: they are openly racist or worse, they believe in eugenics, (I know the left have a blind spot on this, but two wrongs don't make a right), and in many cases they actually advocate abortion for non-whites. If we have to resort to taking pointers from them, the battle is already lost and allying with them on the basis of the enemy of my enemy is my friend will only destroy any chance of a revival of Catholicism in this country. The Alt-Right might be "beyond the pale" at the moment, but that's a precarious social taboo. Most people aren't within a hundred million miles of your average RTE or Irish Times or college professors view of "racism" and other prejudices. Don't you realize you are in a very small minority in this regard? If you look at any politically correct YouTube video or blog post, you see that the vast majority of comments are withering. The tide is shifting towards, maybe not the Alt Right, but certainly cultural libertarians like Dave Cullen or Milo or Sargon of Akkad. People are careful what they say in company, but once know they can let their guard down, you realize that the vast majority of people despise PC. And what Roger is saying in this video (and I agree with him) is that, although one should reject the Alt Right's racialism, their critique of PC is extremely insightful, and their rejection of a kind of sexless ahistorical cosmopolitan view from nowhere reflets a deep truth about the human condition. I imagine the vast majority of people in the pews at most Masses would have social and cultural views closer to populism, at least, than to PC. Have you noticed that most Catholic Twitter accounts in Ireland also have populist leanings? I notice that Position Papers had a whole issue dedicated to Jordan Peterson recently, and it was extremely positive. I realize Peterson distances himself from the Alt Right. But so does Milo, so does Dave Cullen, so does Sargon, and many others, and they are called Alt Right anyway! So it's a pretty broad term. Most of the figures in that constellation of free speech/cultural libertarians have also been willing to talk to the Alt Right and have them on their channels. It's a spectrum. Regarding Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes...have you noticed how effective "Margaret Sanger was a Nazi" arguments have been for the pro-life movement? Not effective at all. Most people don't really care about historical associations of this kind. I rolled my eyes at all the "Abortion discriminates" stuff during the referendum. How did that work out for you, as Dr. Phil says? Trying to beat the left at their own game is a waste of time. (Although, in all honesty, I don't think the referendum result would have been much different whatever the campaign.)
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 8, 2018 12:26:42 GMT
I do think the whole "cordon sanitaire" attitude to the Nazis (since you mention them) was unfortunate-- for decades after WWII, everything from representational art to patriotism to women's role in the home was stigmatised by association with the Nazis. All you had to do was make an argumentum ad Hitlerum. You can't think like that. You have to take every argument on its merits and listen to everybody.
One Alt Righter points out that THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY FOUGHT HITLER would have many attitudes considered "Nazi" now! Most were ardent patriots of their various nations.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Aug 8, 2018 14:51:52 GMT
The Alt-Right might be "beyond the pale" at the moment, but that's a precarious social taboo. Or perhaps a genuine revulsion at their disgusting politics?Most people aren't within a hundred million miles of your average RTE or Irish Times or college professors view of "racism" and other prejudices. Your point is? Racism isn't wrong because the majority think so, it is wrong always and everywhere, be it here, in the Deep South or in South Africa.Don't you realize you are in a very small minority in this regard? If you look at any politically correct YouTube video or blog post, you see that the vast majority of comments are withering. Are they all genuine though, or are some just trolls or bots?The tide is shifting towards, maybe not the Alt Right, but certainly cultural libertarians like Dave Cullen or Milo or Sargon of Akkad. So the tide is shifting towards people whose worldview would not look out of place in South Park? Some step up that...People are careful what they say in company, but once know they can let their guard down, you realize that the vast majority of people despise PC. Do you just think that or have you evidence to back this up? And what Roger is saying in this video (and I agree with him) is that, although one should reject the Alt Right's racialism, their critique of PC is extremely insightful, and their rejection of a kind of sexless ahistorical cosmopolitan view from nowhere reflets a deep truth about the human condition. Which is like saying that because George Soros shares deep truths about the humanity of refugees, we should ignore the much less savoury elements of his worldview.I imagine the vast majority of people in the pews at most Masses would have social and cultural views closer to populism, at least, than to PC. Again, on what evidence, or are you just appealing to the silent majority? Have you noticed that most Catholic Twitter accounts in Ireland also have populist leanings? So? That doesn't make it OK.I notice that Position Papers had a whole issue dedicated to Jordan Peterson recently, and it was extremely positive. I realize Peterson distances himself from the Alt Right. But so does Milo, so does Dave Cullen, so does Sargon, and many others, and they are called Alt Right anyway! So it's a pretty broad term. Most of the figures in that constellation of free speech/cultural libertarians have also been willing to talk to the Alt Right and have them on their channels. It's a spectrum. A-HA! In other words, they are happy to promote them simply because they agree with them on a number of things. Given that milieu's tendency for amorality, I'm not in the least surprised.Regarding Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes...have you noticed how effective "Margaret Sanger was a Nazi" arguments have been for the pro-life movement? OK then, what would you suggest? Not effective at all. Most people don't really care about historical associations of this kind. I rolled my eyes at all the "Abortion discriminates" stuff during the referendum. How did that work out for you, as Dr. Phil says? Trying to beat the left at their own game is a waste of time. (Although, in all honesty, I don't think the referendum result would have been much different whatever the campaign.) Well, your apparent solution would only ensure that the apostasy would be even more rather than less definitive.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Aug 8, 2018 15:03:28 GMT
I do think the whole "cordon sanitaire" attitude to the Nazis (since you mention them) was unfortunate-- for decades after WWII, everything from representational art to patriotism to women's role in the home was stigmatised by association with the Nazis. All you had to do was make an argumentum ad Hitlerum. You can't think like that. You have to take every argument on its merits and listen to everybody. One Alt Righter points out that THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY FOUGHT HITLER would have many attitudes considered "Nazi" now! Most were ardent patriots of their various nations. *Takes off invisible glasses* Honest question, Maolsheachlann. Do you think that it was wrong to try and de-nazify Germany after WWII? Also, the point about people who fought Hitler having those views is a red herring: The fact that they fought Hitler doesn't mean that all their views were correct (the Red Army being a very extreme example).
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 8, 2018 15:08:44 GMT
I do think the whole "cordon sanitaire" attitude to the Nazis (since you mention them) was unfortunate-- for decades after WWII, everything from representational art to patriotism to women's role in the home was stigmatised by association with the Nazis. All you had to do was make an argumentum ad Hitlerum. You can't think like that. You have to take every argument on its merits and listen to everybody. One Alt Righter points out that THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY FOUGHT HITLER would have many attitudes considered "Nazi" now! Most were ardent patriots of their various nations. *Takes off invisible glasses* Honest question, Maolsheachlann. Do you think that it was wrong to try and de-nazify Germany after WWII? Also, the point about people who fought Hitler having those views is a red herring: The fact that they fought Hitler doesn't mean that all their views were correct (the Red Army being a very extreme example). The Nazis were guilty of crimes against humanity so no, I don't think it was wrong. I haven't thought about it much. Purging officials involved in the Nazi party is one thing, but banning Mein Kampf etc. were in my view, stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Aug 8, 2018 15:12:37 GMT
*Takes off invisible glasses* Honest question, Maolsheachlann. Do you think that it was wrong to try and de-nazify Germany after WWII? Also, the point about people who fought Hitler having those views is a red herring: The fact that they fought Hitler doesn't mean that all their views were correct (the Red Army being a very extreme example). The Nazis were guilty of crimes against humanity so no, I don't think it was wrong. I haven't thought about it much. Purging officials involved in the Nazi party is one thing, but banning Mein Kampf etc. were in my view, stupid. How so? If you want to wipe Nazism from the face of the earth, better to try to destroy it within moral constraints rather than risk it happening all over again because of some misguided libertarian belief that no idea should be beyond the pale.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 8, 2018 15:13:19 GMT
The Alt-Right might be "beyond the pale" at the moment, but that's a precarious social taboo. Or perhaps a genuine revulsion at their disgusting politics?Most people aren't within a hundred million miles of your average RTE or Irish Times or college professors view of "racism" and other prejudices. Your point is? Racism isn't wrong because the majority think so, it is wrong always and everywhere, be it here, in the Deep South or in South Africa.Don't you realize you are in a very small minority in this regard? If you look at any politically correct YouTube video or blog post, you see that the vast majority of comments are withering. Are they all genuine though, or are some just trolls or bots?The tide is shifting towards, maybe not the Alt Right, but certainly cultural libertarians like Dave Cullen or Milo or Sargon of Akkad. So the tide is shifting towards people whose worldview would not look out of place in South Park? Some step up that...People are careful what they say in company, but once know they can let their guard down, you realize that the vast majority of people despise PC. Do you just think that or have you evidence to back this up? And what Roger is saying in this video (and I agree with him) is that, although one should reject the Alt Right's racialism, their critique of PC is extremely insightful, and their rejection of a kind of sexless ahistorical cosmopolitan view from nowhere reflets a deep truth about the human condition. Which is like saying that because George Soros shares deep truths about the humanity of refugees, we should ignore the much less savoury elements of his worldview.I imagine the vast majority of people in the pews at most Masses would have social and cultural views closer to populism, at least, than to PC. Again, on what evidence, or are you just appealing to the silent majority? Have you noticed that most Catholic Twitter accounts in Ireland also have populist leanings? So? That doesn't make it OK.I notice that Position Papers had a whole issue dedicated to Jordan Peterson recently, and it was extremely positive. I realize Peterson distances himself from the Alt Right. But so does Milo, so does Dave Cullen, so does Sargon, and many others, and they are called Alt Right anyway! So it's a pretty broad term. Most of the figures in that constellation of free speech/cultural libertarians have also been willing to talk to the Alt Right and have them on their channels. It's a spectrum. A-HA! In other words, they are happy to promote them simply because they agree with them on a number of things. Given that milieu's tendency for amorality, I'm not in the least surprised.Regarding Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes...have you noticed how effective "Margaret Sanger was a Nazi" arguments have been for the pro-life movement? OK then, what would you suggest? Not effective at all. Most people don't really care about historical associations of this kind. I rolled my eyes at all the "Abortion discriminates" stuff during the referendum. How did that work out for you, as Dr. Phil says? Trying to beat the left at their own game is a waste of time. (Although, in all honesty, I don't think the referendum result would have been much different whatever the campaign.) Well, your apparent solution would only ensure that the apostasy would be even more rather than less definitive.It's impossible to discuss such matters with you, Young Ireland. You have a hysterical reaction to anything you consider racism, xenophobia, nationalism etc. God knows where it comes from. This is the man who thinks Patrick Pearse is comparable to Timothy McVeigh. Asking what proof I have of private conversations is a bit silly, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 8, 2018 15:16:11 GMT
You can't control what people think and say, Young Ireland. It would be a scary situation if we could.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Aug 8, 2018 15:16:59 GMT
It's impossible to discuss such matters with you, Young Ireland. You have a hysterical reaction to anything you consider racism, xenophobia, nationalism etc. God knows where it comes from. This is the man who thinks Patrick Pearse is comparable to Timothy McVeigh. Asking what proof I have of private conversations is a bit silly, isn't it? Don't you think your own reaction to political correctness could be seen as hysterical? And yes, I stand by that comparison 100%. Feel free to mock all you like, it's all water off a duck's back to me. Also, I was not asking for evidence of private conversations, but rather your assertion that the majority of people agree with you, which I find to be rather dubious.
|
|