Our modern society is founded on a string of concepts going back to the Enlightenment, when we decided that individual human beings wielding science were superior to religious concepts of inherent order to life itself.
The first concept here is individualism, or the idea that the individual is the highest value in society. This naturally leads to pluralism, or the idea that every individual is right in whatever they do, as all choices are options for the fulfillment of the individual, and any comparison of those to a “right” way is a constraint on that individual.
From that we go to utilitarianism, also known as majority rule, because it states that what benefits the most people is the best answer. Since there’s no way to assess what “benefits” means that does not contradict individualism, that tends to mean that we survey all those people and see what option the greatest number prefer. This is the basis of democracy.
After that, we arrive at pluralism. Since democratic voting allows one direction per many people, and it by definition leaves out a lot of people, it contradicts individualism unless there is also the idea that society exists as a facility to fulfill the individual, and thus that many individuals of conflicting values, ideologies and cultures can co-exist bonded only by the law that says the must be facilitated. This is called pluralism, and it is the basis of our permissive nanny-state that encourages us to tolerate everything and anything except the idea of any kind of standards.
Naturally, this sets up a number of paradoxes. First, we want the popular answer, not the right one. Second, we want quantity of response, not quality. Third, we agree to disagree. Fourth, we tolerate each other, which means detest and dislike, yet agree to be forced to co-exist. Finally, the nature of pluralism itself means there can be no social standards except for pluralism itself; like a computer virus, it’s totally self-referential.
Only because we’ve been indoctrinated in this stuff since birth can we read about it or hear and it not burst out laughing. Everyone has their own version of reality, and what ought to be done? Why, that’s a formalization of disorder. What most people want is the best? But they’re people, which means they’re going to pick short-term benefits over long-term difficult truths. Every election ends in beer, ice cream, circuses and pornography.
We are trained to think about pluralism in terms of its ethnic, sexual preference and gender-based varieties. This is because those things are not choices of the individual, thus can be characterized as arbitrary, and thus (socially) it’s seen as a cruel move to hold those arbitrary attributes against a person. Never mind if you’re simply trying to make an intelligent decision, like let’s not send women into combat or let’s divide our city by social classes into zones. In the view of the Crowd, you’re a jerk for even noticing these differences.
However, it’s important to remember that the goal of pluralism is not in itself this kind of chaos. The key to its goal lies in the individual heart. The selfish individual, putting himself before all else, wants to (a) neutralize society so it can demand nothing from him and (b) create the greatest possible pressure on others to give him what he wants. Guilt works toward this end, which is why pluralism is based on social concerns like tolerance, acceptance, etc. Even more, the implication of displeasure from a group because the actions of an individual threaten them all, as a control mechanism, is very powerful.
It is this individual desire that leads to the invention of pluralism wherever societies exist. The parasitic individual finds a reason to make others owe him, and by forcing them to comply with that rule and evading it himself by being entirely self-contained, he gains the greatest amount of power.
Unfortunately in doing so, he destroys his host, the civilization which supports him. As soon as pluralism occurs, each person has his own ideology, belief and values, and those are created for the sake of affirming individuality, thus must not overlap with any others. Outlandishness accelerates and soon agreement is impossible.
In that state, leadership cannot exist. Problems are ignored until they are disasters threatening the very life of the civilization. It can get away with it for awhile, but eventually a fast-moving problem appears, and the out-of-shape, confused and exhausted civilization cannot react in time, and begins its fall to the disinterested ground below.
43 queries. 1.105 seconds
As if the Endarkenment isn’t rooted in the Renaissance, which is itself rooted somewhere much earlier. ;)
If this permanent revolution has a distinct beginning, it is probably the beginning of every Satya-Treta-Dvapara-Kali yuga cycle.
The idea that individualism leads to collectivism and utilitarianism is difficult to comprehend. My instincts have always been to dissasociate from the mob, and as much as possible avoid crowds of any kind. They have always subconsciously reminded me of the Nuremberg rallies, poo flinging simians, and other collectivist imagery. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures gather. This I think led me to my libertarianism, and preference for the sovereignty of the individual over a centralized, inorganic state power.
But the great insight I learned from this site, and should have understood from observation, is that in the absence of a strong organic culture, individuals will express their sovereignty by uniting around the lowest common denominator. That’s when I realized that the crowds I tended to dismiss were those modern ones like football games that emphasize barbarism and an overactive adrenal gland. The civilizing force that leads to coherent society will be present in some form or another, the question is whether it will be in the hands of a bureaucrat, a salesman, a general, or better yet – written in the blood.
I was just reading an article from salon.com (I am assuming an urban, liberal leaning website) talking about interracial marriage, and how the writer met her husband and about their kid and all that (second marriage for both of them, btw.) All the comments were supportive of the author and talking this and that about the issue, basically for it. I will only speak for myself, and I have no problem finding attraction in all kinds of races, but I have really thought about this, and I could never mix the blood if you will. There is just something about that that for me would not work. I cannot control the choices of others, but others also cannot tell me that my feelings are wrong because they don’t fit their schema of the world.
I guess I am posting this here on this article, because it makes me think about all the people that would be up in arms the second I publicly made a statement that for me I could not bring a mixed race child into this world. This is not something new for me, but as time has gone on and I have become that much more astute in my observations, has grown stronger. I just could not do it for many reasons. Anyway, it would rattle the cages of so many, and yet is my truth, one come to through lots of thought and introspection. Such is our current society and world. We cannot have opinions that make other people uncomfortable, even though it is totally obvious what they are comfortable with is a reality that cannot stand the test of time. At least that is how I see it.
It’s a strange thing, that you (we) are not allowed to offend anyone else, but anyone else may offend you (us).
I never really thought about it that way, but really good point. My reasons for my feelings are totally legit and valid by the way, though no need to expand on them here.
This article posits a crude argument that the Enlightenment was mainly about the individual at the expense of the good of society. Another way of looking at the state of our civilisation is to say that the Enlightenment was about reconfiguring certain structures and paradigms for the sake of balancing the needs of the individual with social imperatives. The philosophers Hume and Kant each in their way considered the social good, particularly in their discussions of aesthetics and beauty. As in the music of Mozart and Haydn, the Enlightenment was all about the balance of reason and emotion to create a diversity within a unified whole.
I agree with this site that a strong organic culture is something to be defended against the forces of relativism. However, we should be careful not to confuse pluralism with relativism. As a liberal humanist, which I would argue has been the dominant paradigm in Western civilisation for the last few centuries, at least in the arts, is something quite different from the anarchic relativism that we have seen emerging over several decades in the form of “post-modernism”. But I’m not really worried too much about this as I can detect that post-modernist relativism is already starting to decline. This site reminds us of the necessity to maintain a strong set of values at the heart of our culture. I say that those values (such as freedom and democracy) are enshrined within the liberal humanist ethos which was defended against the ravages of totalitarianism in the 20th century, with great loss of life. Those are the values that are the best defence of human dignity in the face of authoritarianism. To the credit of the democracies, tremendous courage and leadership was shown in resisting totalitarianism.
My major concern with this site is that it does not offer any large-scale political alternative to things it complains about. A few things were said in this article about not sending women into combat and dividing the city into zones. But I have yet to see how such initiatives can be implemented without some program for political power. And that is a worry, because the language this site uses to develop its arguments is carefully veiled to not give too much away. Either that, or the writers have no idea how their ideas can be implemented politically, having no developed ideology. Is this site a justification for totalitarian power, perhaps in the name of some supposedly benign dictatorship? How else to overcome the culturally entrenched individualism this site rails against? We should bear in mind Albert Camus’ aphorism that “the welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants”.
In arguing a case, we have to be careful to say what we really mean. We must be wary of the logical fallacies of a writer who assumes causal connections between distinct concepts. Diversity is not anarchy. Pluralism is not relativism. A balance between private and public interests, between freedom and public order must be achieved and maintained. This has been achieved within the most celebrated artistic achievements of Western culture (Shakespeare, Dante, Chaucer, Joyce, Dickinson, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Schoenberg, Debussy, Rembrandt, Corot, Matisse, gothic architecture and the neo-gothic revival etc…). As Winston Churchill once said, “Art without tradition is a flock of sheep without a shepherd. Without innovation, it is a corpse”.
Look to the right, at the “About” column:
“…monarchism, caste…”
So does this mean that the site wants to see us ruled by a monarch? It is still not clear what political system this site endorses given that it doesn’t seem to like democracy. The descriptions in the “About” column do not explain anything. So I repeat – you must say exactly what you mean. You need to spell it out. You don’t like democracy. OK, we get that. But what is your alternative and how exactly would it work? If you believe in a supposedly benevolent dictatorship, then just say so, but bear in mind that tyrannical regimes have also argued in this way.
This site is what it is.
It’s up to the reader to figure it out. Or not.
Nobody needs to do any explaining at all, or cater to anyone, at all. Those who love it, love it, just the way it is, and there are quite a few of those.
I am one of them.
@crow: Hmm, some people might interpret such obfuscation as a form of dishonesty. Wouldn’t it be much more helpful to the reader to fully explain one’s political beliefs and how they should be implemented?
Maybe being helpful is not the object, here.
As I said: it is what it is.
The object, as I understand it, is to get the reader to use his/her own resources to reach conclusions, rather than spoon-feed them. I am sure you’ll agree that any destination or result is far more satisfying when one arrives under one’s own steam.
@crow: Sure, it’s good to think for oneself, but it is not good to argue badly with obfuscations, distortions and logical fallacies. A writer needs to help the reader along, especially in a polemical site like this one. It is always the duty of a writer in an article, particularly a political one, to help the reader understand more fully where that writer is coming from. Not only does this avoid confusion, but it also makes the writer look honest. The writer becomes more accountable to the reader for what is written. If that were not so, the reader could reasonably dismiss whatever is written as insidious rhetoric and suspect and that the writer has ulterior motives. It’s all about being transparent and up-front so that the reader is not left wondering. Giving more information about yourself and your political ideas is the best way to empower a reader to make up his or her own mind.
It is also the best way to allow others to classify, objectify, and ignore your arguments because you’re in “Box X”, pigeonholed among “Those Crazies.”
Think about it.
Think False Flag operations.
Think conspiracy, think tinfoil-hat land, think lizard aliens…
BUT F*CKING THINK, dammit. THAT is the point.
(I get that even as an outsider. What, do we need a can opener for you, Knight?)
Hehe, nice :)
I can be truly nightmarish, once I decide to engage on that level, but that is probably why I try not to do so.
Conan the B had a great approach. I used to be a lot like that. Sigh…
As you get older, you start to realize you can’t be fighting every waking moment.
Fond memories, though :)
I as well come here to be mentally challenged, to be forced to critically think against the mainstream dogma. I often don’t agree or full-agree with what I read here. But I have been challenged to think and take a look at myself, and in the process I have gained a greater appreciation for individual responsibility (not that I don’t screw up here and there, but I accept those screw ups as my own), not to mention I have increasingly allowed myself to feel what I have long felt about what I observe in this world, without feeling like I need to push back those feelings because “they are bad”. It has made me a better person, and I will continue to challenge myself and grow. Where it leads I don’t know for sure, but I was pretty depressed living in that state where you observe one thing, but think another because it is the “nice” thing to do. Cognitive dissonance anyone??
Please, keep commenting.
I agree, keep commenting. Good food for thought. That is why I come here. Sometimes I don’t read or just skim the articles and jump straight to the comments. I don’t know what to say, but I don’t think what you wrote is necessarily in conflict with many of the ideas I have gathered here.
I suppose one of the problems is that there are no easy political answers to the problems being discussed. In a democracy that the United State claims to be, all the people have equal power via the power of vote. At least that is the idea. Problem is, the masses are not capable of seeing cause and effect into the future. I may sound like a parrot calling back what I have read here, but thought and observation on the issue has me convinced this is true. The masses would vote to allow the ship to sink if that vote was masked as some sort of immediate gratification, and in a lot of ways it appears that could be just what is going on. So what is the solution? I do not know, but at least being aware of the problem is start.
I have been around this country, and for the life of me cannot see how this charade can last too far into the future. As I have stated here before, we are on our way to a balkanized on so many levels population of half a billion. It will not be pretty. Eyes are the gateway to the soul, and I look at people and all I can say is most people are not much to write home about. That is our future, because these are the masses. What to do about it? I don’t know, but if smart people are talking maybe ideas can be formed.
@Eric: We have known for a long time that democracy has its problems, but with all its checks and balances, it is the best system for guaranteeing freedoms and human rights.
You may not be sure of a solution to whatever problem you have in mind, but I often feel that the authors of this site do, and they’re careful not to bring it out into the clear light of day. When this site advocates “monarchism” and “caste”, the reader has every right to ask questions about what they really mean. I am Australian, not American, but I am reminded of something Sinclair Lewis once said: “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Like I said: “we are on our way to a balkanized on so many levels population of half a billion.” You’d have to be here to understand. You have a different thing going on in Australia. I’ll be clear right here and now, I have no interest in fascism, and I get what you are saying. I personally don’t have the answers to what I see going out there. I’m willing to read what is on this site, and risk there is some sort of fascist agenda, because in the end I can back away from anything if it feels wrong. But I am not so sure what the agenda is other that trying to dissect and become aware of the problem. And that is a start. I read and try to critically think. I get what you are saying about democracy, but when things get crowded up to “mob rules” type of reality, and when that mob end up not being all too bright, well we have a problem. I say it again, balkanization. You’d have to be here. But what is the right answer, well somewhere along the lines of intelligence and changing one’s self for the better. And maybe people with half a brain will walk away from the mob, leaving it impotent and irrelevant. Basically, in my opinion, it is complicated. And for now I’ll just keep observing, critically thinking, and continue to be free to form opinions, changing when new information and insight becomes available, and for that matter be free to hold concurrent contradictory views. Because, again, for me, it is complicated.
Critical thinking, whatever that is, isn’t everything, Eric.
You seem a decent fellow :)
That’s far, far more important.
Good point. I just thought of something, but a lot of it comes down to feeling and developing emotional intelligence, which can lead to good intuition. What about “critical feeling” ;)
What is the key to living in a pleasing and useful way, in spite of all that transpires against it?
I’ve found intelligence can be more counterproductive than productive. It’s as well to have it, but not always to use it. The same might be said of critique. It’s all about making comparisons. Developing the ability to not compare = peace amid the turmoil.
Things are the way things are, and there’s not a lot to be done about that, whereas there’s everything to be done about the way one reacts to it.
Intuition, as you say, is a priceless ability, too often overlooked, when all around you screams that you are ‘wrong’.
I find that people who scream such things know nothing about anything. Especially about themselves.
Do you know I met my wife as the direct result of intuition acted-upon? From half a planet away, I chased down a dream I had, one night, and tracked it to its source. Not many people would have done that :)
I don’t find Brett dishonest in the least, nor ever attempting to hide ulterior motives. I find your words, so far, to be far more so.
Are you, shall we say, a ‘witchfinder’?
You demand clear labels to things, so they may be easily sorted into ‘good’, or ‘bad’. You demand people wear stars on their chests to identify themselves as friend or foe. Your aggression is impossible to conceal, for all the intellect it is couched in. You are out for blood.
Do you know what fascism is? I am no expert, but what I do know is that once the emotional mass is stripped away from it, it becomes merely another political system, with surprisingly beneficial things going for it. Beneficial to its own members, that is, as opposed to beneficial to its enemies.
The universe is full of things that, once the labels are removed, become filled with wonder and mystery. They always were, of course, but the human labeling-obsession as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ made them appear mundane and ‘understood’. Humans rarely understand much of anything, which is as it should be. Except that humans are largely unaware of this, and strut around like omnipotent Gods, in a lunatic asylum.
I write this shortly after admiring two mice in a bird feeder, from a range of an inch, not a bit scared of me, nor me of them. Bats and moths flitting around my head, and raccoons dozing underfoot. That’s what lies beyond ‘good’ and ‘bad’. That’s what life is about. People forget.
Brett is a realist. Read and consider. Without the judgement. You might discover things you never even suspected.
I just wanted to say something like that…
@crow: It is not unreasonable to ask for clarification of someone’s ideological position. It is not unreasonable to ask what “monarchism” and “caste” mean and how they would be implemented if Brett had the power. I am surprised that you don’t see that, or don’t want to see it, and then turn aggressive by attacking me with name-calling.
If a writer refrains from clarifying his political opinions in an article like this, that to my mind may imply dishonesty by omission. The other alternative, as I have clearly said, is that he simply hasn’t thought through his ideas into a coherent ideology or political system in order to give effect to those ideas. So he is either dishonest or negligent. Take your pick. That’s just telling it like it is, and I’d be surprised if Brett took personal offence to that given the aggressive nature of a good portion of his rhetoric. I imagine him to be made of sterner stuff than that. You may take offence for him vicariously if you like; well, good for you! In my experience, when people claim to be offended in a debate it’s usually because they can’t think of an adequate refutation or because they feel personally threatened that their world view is being undermined. But none of that furthers the cause of the argument very much.
I also consider myself a realist. In fact, my experience and knowledge of empirical reality derives from the 18th century Enlightenment. Surprise, surprise! Our whole manner of debate relying on the principles of logic and logical absolutes derive from the tradition of Aristotle through to the great thinkers of the Enlightenment. What an irony, given the attack on the Enlightenment we read about in Brett’s post!
You say I should read the post without judgement. You should know that I always endeavour to set aside my opinions while reading something new. That’s called the suspension of disbelief, for your information. But that doesn’t mean that I cannot form a view of it after I’ve read it. In reality, it’s what we all do anyway. We form opinions about what we see, read and encounter. So of course I’m going to make a judgement upon reading and reflecting on what Brett said. And I’ve done that, just as you have done about my comments. You tell me to read and consider. I recommend you do a course in Philosophy and logic. You may learn a whole lot more than the things you simply want to hear from Brett.
“Attack your opponents with impudent and illogical accusations, making them try to justify themselves. Who’s trying to exonerate himself is already half-guilty in the eyes of the crowd.”
;)
Without the Enlightenment, we were all dumb and drunk, and grizzlies roamed about in the streets.
@1349: Ooh, now that’s really smart of you. Personal attacks are made against me but when I refute them you claim it is half-guilty self-justification. Hahaha. Yet another vicious circle, typical of the kind of circular reasoning and obfuscation by the authors of this site and its apologists. But would I expect anything less of people I suspect to be neo-fascists, and who advocate a site that lacks the moral fortitude to admit that to every reader on the net? Is it any wonder that I and any other fair-minded reader would conclude that you guys may have a hidden agenda?
Yep, you got it right. You’re shamelessly attacking the author but will hardly provoke any self-justification. ;)
Arrive, attack, demean and offend. That’s the leftist mode of life. While accusing those they trash of doing that very same thing to them.
How predictable. How utterly unoriginal.
I should take a course in philosophy and logic? So I can be just like you, GK? I don’t think so. I prefer to be useful, creative and functional. I prefer not to be at odds with everyone and everything. I prefer to live life, not stop everyone else from living theirs.
What’s it like, always suspecting people of having hidden agendas, and of being fascists? Does it bring you joy?
If anyone here needs to take a course, it’s you. Something along the lines of how to separate reality from destructive fantasy, with a dose of humility thrown in.
Why hang out on a site like this, GK? When clearly you loathe it? Go sit in a quiet corner with The Communist Manifesto, and leave real people alone.
@1349: Allegations of self-justification are what you have wantonly projected onto me, without any supporting evidence. Meantime you conveniently ignore all the substantive criticisms I’ve made about the article, which is typical of someone who can’t think of a valid response. But, at least you’ve been able to admit that your personal attacks against me have been refuted.
For _example_, you could give the voting right only to men that
(
are white &&
are American at least in the 5th generation &&
are married to white women, or at least to women =) ) &&
are above 30 &&
have at least 3 children &&
are graduates &&
have an average B+ in natural-science and technical disciplines in their latest certificates of education &&
did at least a year of military service
);
Democratic? By old Athenian standards, yes. To humanists, a nightmare.
(To me, still too leftist.=) )
@1349: I can’t wait for Brett to advocate all your recommendations publicly in one of his articles. Amerika: Fascist, Conservationist, Traditionalist…etc. But above all, fascist. How else to get things done efficiently without the necessity of compulsion? Or hasn’t Brett thought that far? I look forward to this site defending the Nazi regime as the bully boys of fascism as a legitimate political ideology (in the name of the welfare of humanity…of course) by rounding up all of the people you don’t like. You know – all of the people who don’t fit into the list you compiled in your previous comment. You might like to think about adding Jews, gays, transvestites, atheists, liberal academics, social democrats and unionists to the list. Hey, why not? Such people are in your way, aren’t they? While you’re at it you might like to pass on the challenge to Brett to promote that in the next issue of Amerika as his vision for a glorious future.
Your future of a ruling oligarchy may come back to haunt you when the internal purges start, just as the fascists and Stalinists implemented within their respective Parties last century. Do you really trust so few with so much power? Are you that naive? Has history taught you nothing? I seem to remember Marxist-Leninist ideology arguing along similar lines, defending the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, but no doubt you will rationalise any such comparison to yourself because they’re at the other end of the political spectrum. You’re on the side of the angels, aren’t you? Hmm, we’ve heard all this sort of thing before. But keep reading this site for confirmation of all the things you want to read and believe. No-one else in the wider society (i.e. the real world) will take you seriously.
I think you should do a course of history so that you would stop repeating that aggressive deceitful demagogy. Or, better, a course of manual tillage – at least you’d get back to earth.
All in all, as my fellow men say, “Гебель брэша – вецер носіць” (~ “Goebbels barks, but the caravan moves on”).
It would be better to regard the site as a paleoconservative (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism), rather than a fascist. I can tell that after reading the articles here for quite a while. And the site doesn’t conform some of the essential traits of fascism, e.g.,
“Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and the two major forms of socialism—communism and social democracy.[9] Fascism promotes political violence and war as forms of direct action that promote national rejuvenation, spirit and vitality.[3][11] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations to commit or threaten violence against their opponents.[12]” – wiki, Fascism.
If you are interested, I can try to explain what actually is proposed.
@ferret: I was simply asking the question after my suspicions were raised by the misplaced terminology, crooked logic and circumlocution of the posted article. They were raised even further by the attitude of most of the commentators who seemed upset that I would even dare ask the question.
As for your definition, I’d say that this site either distrusts or opposes social democracy, liberal humanism, socialism and communism. That covers four out of five of the alternative ideologies fascism opposes. That in itself is quite revealing. The only reason why political violence, war and paramilitary organisations don’t apply here is because of the nature of our social and political milieu. The time’s not right, there are not enough supporters, the liberal establishment is far too strong politically and militarily. There are many reasons for a fascist to bide his time by sending out propaganda on the internet. Even Hitler knew how to bide his time in the early years before he came to power. His own imprisonment taught him patience.
The thing that this site claims for itself is a variant of conservatism. You could try to argue that makes one out of five, although there are many shades of conservatism, so I’m not completely convinced by the site’s self-description. Nevertheless, just to humour you, let’s assume that paleoconservatism is a mark of differentiation and validly applies to the real motives and political views of the writers of this site’s articles. I would say that it is likely such a term and concept has been appropriated to make the site a little less intimidating for the waverers and potential converts to fascist ideas. In other words, you need to look further than just this one possible exception. The language used by this site recommending a certain strain of conservatism also in some respects resembles the propaganda of fascist regimes. It is also suspicious when the articles fail to clearly outline any political program for implementing the ideas they propose. It is one thing to complain about pluralism – although I maintain my original observation that the writer has confused pluralism with relativism, perhaps deliberately in order to further his rhetoric – but it is another thing altogether when no remedy is proposed to combat the perceived problem. These are standard propaganda tactics that would have been well known to Goebbels.
I would be pleased if Brett came out in the next article to denounce totalitarianism of both the Left and the Right. That is, to denounce fascism altogether, and refuse to make excuses for that megalomaniac, Hitler, as some of his looney supporters have done here, to their everlasting shame. When you consider such a concerted (though vague and blundering) attack on the values of Western liberal humanism, the Enlightenment and pluralism, is it any surprise that a reader should ask whether these guys are fascists in disguise? And why do the apologists get so heated and defensive when the question is asked? It is reasonable to ask whether the writer of the article has any idea of how his vague and woolly rhetoric can be implemented in practice if he (or they) were to have the power to do so. If the writer complains about pluralism, it makes logical sense to a reader that he is likely to support its opposite, namely authoritarian autocracy or oligarchy. After all, if we don’t want pluralism in our Brave New World, and we don’t like democracy, we’ll have to do something concrete to silence our political opponents, wouldn’t we? What would that something be? How to go about it? I don’t believe that Brett or whoever wrote the article was so stupid or careless as to not give consideration to this. Well, then, I say that the writer should have the courage of his convictions and share his views on the necessity of rounding up all the gays, liberal academics, unionists, social democrats and Left wing party supporters in his great and wondrous vision of the future, if that is what he really believes. If not, then say so, and have him tell us that he would somehow tolerate them in his midst, despite all his previous rhetoric against pluralism. Because if he doesn’t round them up by the time he assumes power, hypothetically speaking, he will simply perpetuate the very problems of pluralism he claims exist in current Western societies. When these points are considered together, the reader could be forgiven for having suspicions about the integrity of the writer, or lack thereof. It’s as straightforward as that.
It’s both interesting and shocking to see how super-leftists have absolutely no control over their behaviour.
Socialism is a real misnomer, as are so many terms commandeered by the left. For socialism suggests being social, and leftists are nothing of the sort. Indeed, they have more in common with piranhas.
Piranhas endure each other, as long as is convenient, before suddenly devouring any that display anything even slightly abnormal. Whatever abnormal is, to a piranha. And absolutely anything else in the river is game.
The super-leftist is a thing from a nightmare:
It appears on a site, rips into the writer of whatever it reads, demands to read only what it wishes to read, demands the writer display its own orientation, and generally behaves as if the whole site, and the whole internet is there for its own exclusive entertainment.
It blathers on as if its own petty concerns are the pressing concerns of all. It destroys any social cohesion, any existing ambience, and does nothing but damage along the way. And then it claims injury at the hands of those it injures. These people really are insane. Ugh.
I’m afraid we’ll have to create a “paramilitary organization” in the end )))))), for it seems a causa mortis to just peacefully convince all the piranhas that 2×2 doesn’t equal 5.
Grimly true, probably.
If the ‘socialists’ were actually social, there would never be any need.
I’m not a Leftist, for your information. I regard myself as a centrist, liberal humanist. The super Right-winger is as much of a nightmare as the ultra-Leftist.
I see what you mean.
Let’s start with Mr. Hitler.
He was talking to the masses. He offered a solution for the whole German nation at its hard times.
This site is appealing to the minorities: there is no talk to the people, no articulated goal, no ideology presented.
The very word “ideology” is a bad word here.
Couple of times there were a sketches of a future happy society (or, better, community) presented on this site. It was about good traditions, religiosity, family values, no (or almost no) alcohol, no drugs, great care about the nature, ecology, etc.
It is supposed to be achieved through the sef-discipline and responsibility of the members, all based on traditions, thus minimum rules, laws, police, and other state authorities are required.
Rulers are the most respected members who have the best ability to benefit the whole community. If a member decides the rules are not good for him, he is free to leave the community. If somebody violates the rules, harms the community, he gets expelled.
I don’t believe all these can make any propaganda that would influence people. It is essential for the people to see the picture of a better society, rather than reading about how bad it is, and how leftists are guilty. Hitler promised the land for Germans, and what you can see here is that equality is about all people being of the same abilities and that makes the end of Western civilization. Is it attractive? Can it produce millions of followers?
You are suspecting a kind of plot against the humanity here, while it would be better to consider something simpler and more natural.
The hints:
Ideology is a bad word, intelligentsia is a bad word too, there is no difference between democracy, liberalism, socialism, communism, Soviet regime; there are no capitalists in the US – only elites; utilitarianism is about the majority rule, ends-before-means thinking but the ends are not articulated, and so on, and so on…
Imagine you are a neo-furer, would you run a web site in such inefficient way in order to gain popularity, power, etc.?
I doubt you will hear from Brett about your questions, but it’s not because of some kind of conspiracy. He is busy writing a next article.
You have made a number of assertions and assumptions that would require a great deal of discussion. I don’t intend to deal with them all here, but I would like to make a few salient points.
You dispute the use of the word ideology in the context of this site. I say that the word still applies in its broadest sense of presenting certain ideas in a polemical style. You mentioned good traditions. What are they and who defines the good? Religiosity – as an atheist I see no reason or evidence to support the existence of a deity or transcendent intelligence, but that doesn’t make me a bad person. I may not be perfect, but I’m still a good person, as are many other atheists. Family values – what defines a family? Mum, Dad and 2 kids behind a white picket fence in the suburbs? What about single parent families who successfully raise children in a loving environment? Widows, for example. Why can’t a lesbian couple show as much love and commitment to each other and the children in their care as anyone else? So I’d argue with the late Christopher Hitchens that homosexual love is not a form of sexuality, but a form of love, and demands our respect for that reason.
You assume that your homogenous view of culture is something that will proceed organically, “based on traditions”. But one of the reasons for my response to this article is that the traditions of the West are not homogenous at all. The great tradition of the West which has seen it rise to a pre-eminent position in the world has been due to diversity within that organic cultural growth. This is what led to scientific discoveries and new ways of thinking philosophically and more creativity in the arts. The Enlightenment epitomised all of that, and it is those values of freedom, diversity, creativity free from the stranglehold of censorship, tolerance of other beliefs except where such beliefs cause harm or threaten the values of tolerance themselves. In other words, we should not necessarily tolerate the intolerant (religious fanatics, political extremists et. al). Of course what to do when confronted with these things is a matter for further debate, which is all part of the Western tradition of co-operation, dialogue and creativity. These are the products of a pluralistic culture. It does not lead to chaotic relativism, necessarily, and I have nothing but disdain for the post-modernist relativists in our midst. But they will die out.
So ultimately it comes down to the way in which we respond to the “other”. Your assumption that a future happy society will flower as a result of a natural organic development from the people is unrealistic. There will always be dissent and people who differ from ourselves. I’m a prime example of dissent! You seem to advocate some from of ostracism, which necessarily involves compulsion by the state. That would involve a lot of people if you include everyone who opposes the official ideology. You don’t like that word, OK, so let’s just rephrase that and say “the established paradigm”. Ultimately, it makes no practical difference.
On another note, I find it astonishing that you would say “there is no difference between democracy, liberalism, socialism, communism, Soviet regime…”. That almost deserves no comment whatsoever, but I will say that the overwhelming majority of historians and political scientists would scoff at the suggestion and easily refute it.
As for your seeming apology for Hitler, I just want to point out that Hitler was always a racist and anti-Semite. He didn’t just advocate “Germany for the Germans”, but from early on promoted the idea of Lebensraum. He was driven by the urge for revenge against the Allies. He was also reacting to the brutal treatment he received at the hands of his father as a child. There has been no greater misanthropist in history than Adolf Hitler.
You say this site is not out to gain popularity, power etc. That may be true, but only confirms what I previously said – that the time is not ripe. Here in Australia racists were silenced by the prevailing liberal ethos in our politics, journalism, and public institutions, but a couple of decades ago we saw the emergence in politics of a woman of the far Right, with similar ideas to the French racist, Le Pen. Racists came out of the woodwork from all over the place! She was eventually beaten politically and the racists have gone back into their shell. But it shows that liberals like myself must be eternally vigilant to defend the freedoms offered by Western civilisation. I simply remain unconvinced by your attempted rationalisation of this site. Until I see a direct repudiation of fascism as outlined in my earlier comments, I will remain unconvinced by the supposed integrity of the writers on this site.
I wasn’t clear enough, sorry.
I was talking about the site, not my beliefs.
“Ideology” is a bad word on this site. Since paleoconservatism is not an ideology, that’s probably why this word is always used on this site in a negative connotation. Just guessing.
“there is no difference between democracy, liberalism…” -not for me. I was talking about the posted articles. Just read them and you’ll see. And the “Hegel’s dialectic materialism” is not my invention.
My point was this site is not a fascist one just because there are posts with “the misplaced terminology, crooked logic”, etc.
Sorry about my English and the misunderstanding that happened.
This article will answer some of your questions. Read the comments.
http://www.amerika.org/politics/save-25-on-your-taxes/?doing_wp_cron=1342253963.4239521026611328125000
Brett: “I prefer indirect and non-violent means.” This site is primarily critical and philosophical. I think it would be helpful for Brett to clarify his vision for America vis a vis monarchism, but he is certainly under no obligation to do so. There are literally thousands of well-written articles on this website, including links to entire books on various subjects. If you want to understand more, it’s up to you to dig for it. But the article above should be enough to assuage your concern — it was for me.
@LuxLibertas: Thanks for the link.
@GoodKnight: And one more article:
http://www.amerika.org/conservation/preservationism/?doing_wp_cron=1342280909.6564869880676269531250
(the last comment there by KN is mine, I became ferret later)
What are you referring to here?
From my reading of history, it’s the opposite. The West was unified and when that got fragmented, started using “ideology” to justify diversity and claim it as a strength.
It seems to me that with modern society, we’ve traded one form of compulsion for another. Where once the threat was that the king would throw you out of your home, now the banks or police will do that if you have unpopular opinions and cease to be profitable.
Words: so easily twisted to imply something that is not there.
For example, “reconfiguring certain structures and paradigms for the sake of balancing the needs of the individual with social imperatives” — that means nothing.
The fact is that what happened was an emphasis on the individual above everything else, and so, exactly what the article claimed was what happened.
You can try to explain it away by using vague language, but really that’s a moron’s tool, since morons like how things feel and look but don’t pay attention to substance.
What is the substance of the Enlightenment?
The individual.
What is the result of that?
The individual came before society.
Historically speaking this is correct, and your argument is nothing more than a distraction.
I just love your comments :)