Main Edition
US
FR
America must not share the fate of Troy. Nathan Howard/Getty Images
Aeschylus’s tragedy Agamemnon begins with the fall of Troy. Clytemnestra, wife of the Greek king, hears news of victory, and imagines the “clash of cries” in the captured city, as the victors and the vanquished mingle. Musing on the destruction, exhaustion and still-fresh memory of violence, she hopes the occupying soldiers will withhold from looting the vanquished and angering their gods: “O, let there be no fresh wrong done!”
And yet fresh wrong will be done. It just won’t be between the Greeks and Trojans, but among the cohorts of the victors. As she pictures the sacking of Troy, Clytemnestra is already plotting to murder her husband.
Something of the same uneasy mood of post-conflict hostility, and lurking internecine violence, pervades a bracing new polemic from America’s leading conservative activist: Chris Rufo. America’s Cultural Revolution is an unapologetically uncharitable and partisan but comprehensive explanation of how we got to today’s bitter culture war. It describes the modern history of Left-wing radicalism, from the Sixties to Black Lives Matter, and the ongoing institutionalisation of this ideology via education and DEI bureaucracy.
On the face of it, it is an accessible introduction, for conservative lay readers, to key figures and ideas on the radical Left. Everyone has an opinion on this movement’s culture war and perhaps Rufo’s most impressive achievement is economy in tackling the topic.
We learn about Black Power activist Angela Davis’s suspected complicity in a violent jailbreak, alongside her advocacy of violent revolution and later of a subtler institutional kind. The Brazilian Marxist Paulo Freire is presented as a bearded sage who inflicted untold ignorance on post-revolutionary Angola, before finally entrenching his “pedagogy of the oppressed” in American schools, only harming the disadvantaged children he sought to liberate. And Derrick Bell, the father of critical race theory, is presented as a mediocre, insecure man who sank ever deeper into racialised paranoia following his early, affirmative-action-driven promotion to undeserved prominence at Harvard — and in doing so, birthed a new field of legal theory that now threatens to demolish the principle of equality before the law.
In other words: this story begins after the fall of Troy. The invaders are inside the walls, burning and looting, and the book is a retrospective account of the siege. Rufo states that he wants to expand beyond the polemical register of activism, to offer a more expansive account of the political challenge as he sees it: ideological and institutional capture by Left-wing radicalism. The word “coup” recurs frequently. The arc of the book describes how the hated victors smuggled themselves into America’s institutions, hidden in the wooden horse of civil rights, only to erupt and attempt to destroy the founding ideals that granted them entrance.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe Left’s Trojan Horse succeeded because it used an outer casing of moral superiority to challenge the (allegedly) prejudiced, complacent and perhaps corrupt establishment to live up to its own professed moral values [civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, fair deal for all – that sort of thing].
The do-gooder ethic is very catchy. Most people don’t like to see themselves as colluding in an unjust tyranny. So what kind of Trojan Horse can the resurgent conservatives hope to deploy in order to subvert this new ultra-moral establishment of SJWs?
Does that even matter, I wonder? It never bothered the anti-Obamacare masses that their cries of “Federal hands off our Medicare!” would have seen them plunged into ruin (and I keep wishing Obama had done exactly what they demanded, at least for a time!); or that they – the most hysterically self-proclaimed God-fearing of nations) were demanding that everything their Bibles told them to do be totally ignored. With such total ignorance and hatred of anyone perceived as not American enough, the Right could command their support for anything, without the need to dress it up in proper academic justifications, surely. Indeed, isn’t that what “America First” did?
Describing a small fraction of the nutters on both sides does nothing to further the discussion. Utter and complete ignorance has no particular home.
“Utter and complete ignorance has no particular home.”
Yes it does. That’s what RFK is for.
I’m thinking that utter and complete ignorance is at home everywhere.
“Utter and complete ignorance has no particular home.”
Yes it does. That’s what RFK is for.
I’m thinking that utter and complete ignorance is at home everywhere.
Outside of hyperbole or hysterical rhetoric, are Americans more “hysterically self-proclaimed God fearing” than Afghanistan?
I can envision a version of your claims that I would partly agree with, but I’m somewhere near the sociopolitical center, well to the left of the estimated-average commenter here. Who do you intend to reach, let alone persuade, with your mocking denouncements…those you dismiss as creatures of “total ignorance and hatred”? More one-sided extremism masquerading as good sense. Perhaps the center will be excavated from the rubble left by warring absolutists.
Is there a better and worse way to live a human life? If saying “yes” makes one an “absolutist” then mark me down as that. If one says “no,” nothing matters. Absolutely nothing.
Is there a better and worse way to live a human life? If saying “yes” makes one an “absolutist” then mark me down as that. If one says “no,” nothing matters. Absolutely nothing.
Describing a small fraction of the nutters on both sides does nothing to further the discussion. Utter and complete ignorance has no particular home.
Outside of hyperbole or hysterical rhetoric, are Americans more “hysterically self-proclaimed God fearing” than Afghanistan?
I can envision a version of your claims that I would partly agree with, but I’m somewhere near the sociopolitical center, well to the left of the estimated-average commenter here. Who do you intend to reach, let alone persuade, with your mocking denouncements…those you dismiss as creatures of “total ignorance and hatred”? More one-sided extremism masquerading as good sense. Perhaps the center will be excavated from the rubble left by warring absolutists.
Culture. The Left understand this, mastered it then screwed the pooch as they decided to rub the other side’s face in it. I give you Disney. I know people who would probably describe themselves as fairly liberal who are sick to the back teeth with blatant social justice narratives in popular culture. That most of the output is also dire on virtually every other level only makes it a more potent stick with which to beat the Left.
At the risk of sounding like one of UnHerd’s below-the-line professors I offer this observation on the quite valid point you make.
Hollywood’s Woke overreach (attempting unprecedented levels of youth-influence with Disney) will probably be followed by a partial retreat rather than a genuine reversal. The anti-woke will cry “Victory!” while failing to notice how much territory was taken by the legions of Woke – and how little they conceded in retreat. Normalise, accustomise and desensitise – these are key tactics in diffusing public resistance to shocking new ideas. What better way to deploy these methods than through immersive and seductive story-telling.
Yes I would agree but here’s the catch; their storytelling is neither immersive nor seductive. Which is why Disney and the studios it’s absorbed are losing money hand over fist. Something will have to give.
Yeah because Truth Social is doing great. How’s Twitter doing under musk
Twitter is much better, actually, unless you were there for the censorship.
Twitter is much better, actually, unless you were there for the censorship.
Yeah because Truth Social is doing great. How’s Twitter doing under musk
And then again, large portions of the culture are just disengaging entirely from the progressive leftist insanity. It’s just too nuts and damaging to deal with and there’s a substantial number of folks who are just not buying into it, creating separate products, separate news sites, separate ‘sane’ states and areas of the country. We’re cleaving into TWO nations.
When otherwise normal and polite people are at complete odds on every last subject matter, due to social media’s devious mechanizations, cleaving might be the best solution. I simply will never agree that a male is a female simply because they say so. And I will never be able to proclaim that humans can impact global climate in any measurable way by committing economic suicide. Nor will I ever believe that it is wise to judge people by the color of their skin or how they chose to have sex.
Mr Trees. Perhaps I can help. While you weren’t looking, a neologism was foisted on you – ‘woman’. Woman (confusingly, spelt and pronounced ‘woman’) means woman and transwoman. Unfortunately, no-one told we peasants, who still think it means ‘woman’. This is why you occasionally get the amusing situation where Kier Starmer can be reduced to a squirming, blushing stuttering obfuscator; all he needs to say is that a woman is a woman and a transwoman is a transwoman. But he daren’t deny the neologism – ‘woman’, which the Guardianocracy assert now means both ‘woman’ and ‘transwoman’.
This is the ideology of ‘Romanticism’ – the primacy of the self. If I feel I’m a woman, then I’m a woman.
It’s surprising how most can’t see that the controversy is a matter of semantics.
It’s surprising how most can’t see that the controversy is a matter of semantics.
Mr Trees. Perhaps I can help. While you weren’t looking, a neologism was foisted on you – ‘woman’. Woman (confusingly, spelt and pronounced ‘woman’) means woman and transwoman. Unfortunately, no-one told we peasants, who still think it means ‘woman’. This is why you occasionally get the amusing situation where Kier Starmer can be reduced to a squirming, blushing stuttering obfuscator; all he needs to say is that a woman is a woman and a transwoman is a transwoman. But he daren’t deny the neologism – ‘woman’, which the Guardianocracy assert now means both ‘woman’ and ‘transwoman’.
This is the ideology of ‘Romanticism’ – the primacy of the self. If I feel I’m a woman, then I’m a woman.
Rather amusingly, one side has all the people with martial skills, experience and intent. The other side, pink of hair and pierced of septum, will not. It’s not difficult to see how it ends.
And yet I’ve never heard the chant “punch a trans”.
And yet I’ve never heard the chant “punch a trans”.
How’s that book banning going?
It’s only the social justice side that is in to book banning.
You do understand that moving a book from one shelf in the library (Children’s Section) to another (Adult Section) is not the same as banning said book, don’t you? And of course you realize that images too pornographic to be shown on television or in a school board meeting are inappropriate for a third-grade classroom.
It’s only the social justice side that is in to book banning.
You do understand that moving a book from one shelf in the library (Children’s Section) to another (Adult Section) is not the same as banning said book, don’t you? And of course you realize that images too pornographic to be shown on television or in a school board meeting are inappropriate for a third-grade classroom.
When otherwise normal and polite people are at complete odds on every last subject matter, due to social media’s devious mechanizations, cleaving might be the best solution. I simply will never agree that a male is a female simply because they say so. And I will never be able to proclaim that humans can impact global climate in any measurable way by committing economic suicide. Nor will I ever believe that it is wise to judge people by the color of their skin or how they chose to have sex.
Rather amusingly, one side has all the people with martial skills, experience and intent. The other side, pink of hair and pierced of septum, will not. It’s not difficult to see how it ends.
How’s that book banning going?
Thin end of the wedge triumphs again
on a related point has anyone watching A Spy Amongst Friends noticed how they have worked a woman an a black male into the story where they had no right to be
Nice catch. It’s everywhere now, isn’t it?
I read The 6:20 Man recently, which is a new popular and quite good novel, and one of the brothers of a character was a terribly troubled individual because his/her father never accepted he/whatever was trans. Just like that out of the blue (or, de la nada, as they say in Spanish, which makes much more sense frankly).
I read The 6:20 Man recently, which is a new popular and quite good novel, and one of the brothers of a character was a terribly troubled individual because his/her father never accepted he/whatever was trans. Just like that out of the blue (or, de la nada, as they say in Spanish, which makes much more sense frankly).
Have you noticed how the long ranger is always white when it’s based on a real life black man? Have you noticed how white ppl hijacked things like rock and roll, country music, etc….we can go on and on.
That is rather like claiming football and cricket as white and i was not saying that.
Lone Ranger.
You must be an African-American Studies grad. No one knows what the Lone Ranger is based on, if anything. You would have had to ask the show producer and writers. That black guy you are talking about looks half-white to me.
That is rather like claiming football and cricket as white and i was not saying that.
Lone Ranger.
You must be an African-American Studies grad. No one knows what the Lone Ranger is based on, if anything. You would have had to ask the show producer and writers. That black guy you are talking about looks half-white to me.
Nice catch. It’s everywhere now, isn’t it?
Have you noticed how the long ranger is always white when it’s based on a real life black man? Have you noticed how white ppl hijacked things like rock and roll, country music, etc….we can go on and on.
I mostly credit our ethically challenged Western media — news, entertainment and social — for the creation and maintenance of the current neo-gender-political standards.
Also, I have been consuming mainstream news for 35 years and tend to notice things that many other people don’t. [Or maybe they do notice but feel like they are supposed not to notice and behave accordingly.]
One thing is the thick social-issue politics [or ‘woke-ism’] within the mainstream news media, especially the left-wing and neoliberal outlets.
Notably, when it comes to victimization, there are injustices that the said news-media seem to consider, cover or ignore as though those injustices are socially and therefore ideologically/politically acceptable.
And such ‘journalism’ is increasingly becoming systematic. Yet, many reporters and editors continue to reply to their critics with, ‘Who, me? I’m just the messenger.’
Whatever the news media may be, they are not ‘just the messenger’; nor are they just a reflection of the community — or their products’ consumers, necessarily — in which they circulate.
Yes I would agree but here’s the catch; their storytelling is neither immersive nor seductive. Which is why Disney and the studios it’s absorbed are losing money hand over fist. Something will have to give.
And then again, large portions of the culture are just disengaging entirely from the progressive leftist insanity. It’s just too nuts and damaging to deal with and there’s a substantial number of folks who are just not buying into it, creating separate products, separate news sites, separate ‘sane’ states and areas of the country. We’re cleaving into TWO nations.
Thin end of the wedge triumphs again
on a related point has anyone watching A Spy Amongst Friends noticed how they have worked a woman an a black male into the story where they had no right to be
I mostly credit our ethically challenged Western media — news, entertainment and social — for the creation and maintenance of the current neo-gender-political standards.
Also, I have been consuming mainstream news for 35 years and tend to notice things that many other people don’t. [Or maybe they do notice but feel like they are supposed not to notice and behave accordingly.]
One thing is the thick social-issue politics [or ‘woke-ism’] within the mainstream news media, especially the left-wing and neoliberal outlets.
Notably, when it comes to victimization, there are injustices that the said news-media seem to consider, cover or ignore as though those injustices are socially and therefore ideologically/politically acceptable.
And such ‘journalism’ is increasingly becoming systematic. Yet, many reporters and editors continue to reply to their critics with, ‘Who, me? I’m just the messenger.’
Whatever the news media may be, they are not ‘just the messenger’; nor are they just a reflection of the community — or their products’ consumers, necessarily — in which they circulate.
At the risk of sounding like one of UnHerd’s below-the-line professors I offer this observation on the quite valid point you make.
Hollywood’s Woke overreach (attempting unprecedented levels of youth-influence with Disney) will probably be followed by a partial retreat rather than a genuine reversal. The anti-woke will cry “Victory!” while failing to notice how much territory was taken by the legions of Woke – and how little they conceded in retreat. Normalise, accustomise and desensitise – these are key tactics in diffusing public resistance to shocking new ideas. What better way to deploy these methods than through immersive and seductive story-telling.
As is becoming increasingly apparent, the “do-gooder ethic” means compassion for some and utter callousness towards others: callousness towards the white working class, callousness towards high achievers forced to step aside for less well qualified members of a protected victim class; callousness towards women, who out of compassion for a tiny group of men are expected to forfeit their privacy, safety, sports and even the words they use to describe themselves; callousness towards all those who because of the influx of illegal migrants are struggling to access services and to find affordable housing, let alone a job that pays a living wage; callousness towards children, whose innocence and right to truth are under assault from those very people who should be defending them; callousness towards our own countryside, which with solar arrays and wind turbines is increasingly metamorphosing into an industrial landscape in which beauty and bird life are knowingly destroyed all for the sake of power – in both senses of the word.
Given that what offends us most about all of the above cases is the flagrant unfairness, I would suggest that the resurgent conservatives focus their campaign on restoring fairness or what used to be known as equity.
I take your point but beware of “equity”. Unless I am mistaken it has become a major weapon in the Left’s war on White.
Yes, we need to relate to “Equality” (of opportunity), opposing “equity” (of outcomes). I guess the fairness point can also be extended that the Left’s vernacular always talks about equity in positions of power. Company board representasion etc. They do not talk about the more mundane and physical occupations – brick-laying, labouring etc. The contradictions in the left’s identitarian splits will also undermine it. Could the Right’s mantra be “apply common sense and decency”
Nor do they talk about equity in professional sports! Where are the dwarf basketball players or the anorexic, one legged footballers? Should we demand that the NFL reduce the number of black players from 70% to 13% while we complain that they only make up 7% of coaches? And mandate the acceptance of blind wide receivers and female linebackers?
The same could be said for football in this country
That’s silly.
No, Warren Trees’s remarks are not silly. He is simply pointing out the contradiction revealed by the fact that ‘progressives’ insist on some kind of proportional ‘equity’ in some areas (eg should be 50% female CEO’s), while cheerfully ignoring it in others, such as athletics and football. Ah, but money counts in the latter. Sponsors want the best runners and players, and therefore reconnect with standards of excellence.
No, Warren Trees’s remarks are not silly. He is simply pointing out the contradiction revealed by the fact that ‘progressives’ insist on some kind of proportional ‘equity’ in some areas (eg should be 50% female CEO’s), while cheerfully ignoring it in others, such as athletics and football. Ah, but money counts in the latter. Sponsors want the best runners and players, and therefore reconnect with standards of excellence.
The same could be said for football in this country
That’s silly.
Many of us are don’t identify as either “left” or “right”but do identify with “apply common sense and decency”. I think that label is liberal.
Nor do they talk about equity in professional sports! Where are the dwarf basketball players or the anorexic, one legged footballers? Should we demand that the NFL reduce the number of black players from 70% to 13% while we complain that they only make up 7% of coaches? And mandate the acceptance of blind wide receivers and female linebackers?
Many of us are don’t identify as either “left” or “right”but do identify with “apply common sense and decency”. I think that label is liberal.
Yes, we need to relate to “Equality” (of opportunity), opposing “equity” (of outcomes). I guess the fairness point can also be extended that the Left’s vernacular always talks about equity in positions of power. Company board representasion etc. They do not talk about the more mundane and physical occupations – brick-laying, labouring etc. The contradictions in the left’s identitarian splits will also undermine it. Could the Right’s mantra be “apply common sense and decency”
The Queen is Dead! Long live the (drag) Queen!
Man you guys are pathetic. Pretty much everything White America has came about from raped, pillaged or stolen. I know it’s hard for you snow flakes to deal with it but it’s simply fact. You lied cheated, strong arm your way to the top, now you want to act all brand new like it never happened. Why won’t you just admit it so we all can move forward
By the same yardstick, pretty much everything the modern world has came about from…how did you put it? “[R]aped, pillaged or stolen.” Colonization has been going on for millennia. Over and over and over again. Whether tribe against tribe, or nation against nation.
Life on this planet has mostly been brutal because Mother Nature is not kind…and the perpetrators (and victims) had every type of skin pigmentation and were made up of both males and females alike.
And each of us have both perpetrators and victims in our DNA. Guaranteed. It’s merely a question of the historical place and time in question.
Oh… .so you are ok with, how did I put it, the rape, pillage, and murder because Mother Nature is not kind. but yet hypocrits like you want to cry about whats wrong. You have no merit to trying to take the moral high ground. By your own paradigm there is no such thing. So stop your whining.
Do please tell us how amazing Africa was before it was colonised?
What great scientific, engineering and cultural achievements ever happened there?
How all these slaves were put on slavers ships?
Is it not the case that they were captured by other African tribes?
Europeans did not discover interior of Africa till after mid 19th century.
So after slavery was abolished in Britain.
All the Africans were and are free to go back to “Mama Africa”.
They tried. Placed called Liberia.
Tell us how successful that is?
Do please tell us how amazing Africa was before it was colonised?
What great scientific, engineering and cultural achievements ever happened there?
How all these slaves were put on slavers ships?
Is it not the case that they were captured by other African tribes?
Europeans did not discover interior of Africa till after mid 19th century.
So after slavery was abolished in Britain.
All the Africans were and are free to go back to “Mama Africa”.
They tried. Placed called Liberia.
Tell us how successful that is?
Oh… .so you are ok with, how did I put it, the rape, pillage, and murder because Mother Nature is not kind. but yet hypocrits like you want to cry about whats wrong. You have no merit to trying to take the moral high ground. By your own paradigm there is no such thing. So stop your whining.
So I want to see a land acknowledgement for England. It’s clear the land was stolen from the Welsh by force, rapine and plunder. The same goes for the Dane Law. Of course, there has to be a Norman land acknowledgement for stealing the whole UK from native peoples as well. If the US has to get out of North America, then the Welsh and Irish are due reparations, right? /sarcasm
If revolution and conquest ain’t valid, why doesn’t Russia have to give up its empire?
Really?
You view of appropriation is very one sided (whites stole country music, blah, blah).
On this basis why should black people use cars, mobile phones, modern medicine?
How would they survive in Africa without grain from Ukraine?
Even in music, how would they record and distribute their music?
By the same yardstick, pretty much everything the modern world has came about from…how did you put it? “[R]aped, pillaged or stolen.” Colonization has been going on for millennia. Over and over and over again. Whether tribe against tribe, or nation against nation.
Life on this planet has mostly been brutal because Mother Nature is not kind…and the perpetrators (and victims) had every type of skin pigmentation and were made up of both males and females alike.
And each of us have both perpetrators and victims in our DNA. Guaranteed. It’s merely a question of the historical place and time in question.
So I want to see a land acknowledgement for England. It’s clear the land was stolen from the Welsh by force, rapine and plunder. The same goes for the Dane Law. Of course, there has to be a Norman land acknowledgement for stealing the whole UK from native peoples as well. If the US has to get out of North America, then the Welsh and Irish are due reparations, right? /sarcasm
If revolution and conquest ain’t valid, why doesn’t Russia have to give up its empire?
Really?
You view of appropriation is very one sided (whites stole country music, blah, blah).
On this basis why should black people use cars, mobile phones, modern medicine?
How would they survive in Africa without grain from Ukraine?
Even in music, how would they record and distribute their music?
I take your point but beware of “equity”. Unless I am mistaken it has become a major weapon in the Left’s war on White.
The Queen is Dead! Long live the (drag) Queen!
Man you guys are pathetic. Pretty much everything White America has came about from raped, pillaged or stolen. I know it’s hard for you snow flakes to deal with it but it’s simply fact. You lied cheated, strong arm your way to the top, now you want to act all brand new like it never happened. Why won’t you just admit it so we all can move forward
A very good question. Maybe the conservative intellectual “Trojan horse” should be a combination of a relentless focus on results and a mission to translate woke terms into plain English.
”By their fruits, ye shall know them”. DEI courses which increase unconscious bias as measured by the Yale tests. Cities rendered unliveable by defunding the police. Teenagers fast tracked to mutilation to their subsequent regret by an insistence on “affirming” their identities. An aversion to practical measures to help Caribbean boys in London schools. Etc etc.
Ultimately, the point is that progressives are being guided by critical theorists who are obsessed with the “marginalised” not in order to solve their problems or improve their lives but instead to radicalise and mobilise them. The minimal or negative practical consequences of SJ campaigns are not a coincidence but an inherent feature of the approach.
The other leg may be to ensure that the public understand what behind the nice words the progressive camp are pushing for. This is where individuals like Russo are most useful. The success of the progressives is partly explained by institutional capture but it also by their ability to conceal their more wolffish aspirations under nice liberal sheep clothing.
Alex Carnegie (not m3pc7q3ixe).
Mr Carnegie. I’m not so sure the “negative practical consequences of SJ campaigns are not a coincidence but an inherent feature of the approach.” I think you’ve fallen into the trap of expecting Romantics to apply any sort of reasoning at all. A Romantic looks at a shiny surface and says ‘that makes me feel x’. Practicality doesn’t come into it; neither does the application of reasoning by analogy. It’s all very well for you – or me – to attempt to think a step or two into the future; that’s simply not necessary for the Romantic.
Conservatives aren’t interested in results. Not even the betterment of the US. And stop hijacking terms like woke.
Marxism has failed everywhere, but Marxists are imune to experimental results. They’re absolutely certain that it will work next time.
Marxism has failed everywhere, but Marxists are imune to experimental results. They’re absolutely certain that it will work next time.
Mr Carnegie. I’m not so sure the “negative practical consequences of SJ campaigns are not a coincidence but an inherent feature of the approach.” I think you’ve fallen into the trap of expecting Romantics to apply any sort of reasoning at all. A Romantic looks at a shiny surface and says ‘that makes me feel x’. Practicality doesn’t come into it; neither does the application of reasoning by analogy. It’s all very well for you – or me – to attempt to think a step or two into the future; that’s simply not necessary for the Romantic.
Conservatives aren’t interested in results. Not even the betterment of the US. And stop hijacking terms like woke.
Quite – how else would these billionaire ‘philanthropists’ be getting away with what they’ve been up to in recent years?
Back in the early part of the 20th century Gramsci viewed the task thus: “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.” It had to be that way because there was no way they were going to be achieve their goal via the uncorrupted ballot box.
Most people are well intentioned and more especially the young and idealistic who are particularly vulnerable to indoctrination when the iron fist is concealed in the velvet glove of noble mindedness, fairness and/or kindness.
Hence the focus on ‘education, education, education’ -which of course was double speak for ‘indoctrination, indoctrination, indoctrination’.
Watch out for “moms for freedom”.
Exactly.
That is why far left hates people like Fran*o and Pinoc**t.
They demonstrated how to deal properly with lefty vermin.
Watch out for “moms for freedom”.
Exactly.
That is why far left hates people like Fran*o and Pinoc**t.
They demonstrated how to deal properly with lefty vermin.
The New Left’s own contradictions and self-abnegation of its moral foundations is all that’s required.
The Right has never had a clue nor a moral compass. See Trump
The left’s moral compass is their absolute certainty that they’re correct, no matter how many people they have to kill to get their way. They worship power, not the consent of the governed.
The left’s moral compass is their absolute certainty that they’re correct, no matter how many people they have to kill to get their way. They worship power, not the consent of the governed.
The Right has never had a clue nor a moral compass. See Trump
Conservatives can demand a return to Constitutional government by the consent of the governed. The “do gooders” demand unchecked power to rule through regulations. They need to meet “the fierce urgency of now” with no delays for legislation or judicial review. The “do gooders” want a dictatorship. Conservatives can object to dictatorship based on the fact that concentrated power is always abused, no matter how good the excuse for it. The reason relatively free market capitalism has given mankind unprecedented prosperity is that it involves more people in decisions than authoritarian alternatives. The “do gooders” want a return to feudalism, dressed up in newspeak.
We could just blow their brains out. Should be sufficient. Violence works particularly against wimps.
Does that even matter, I wonder? It never bothered the anti-Obamacare masses that their cries of “Federal hands off our Medicare!” would have seen them plunged into ruin (and I keep wishing Obama had done exactly what they demanded, at least for a time!); or that they – the most hysterically self-proclaimed God-fearing of nations) were demanding that everything their Bibles told them to do be totally ignored. With such total ignorance and hatred of anyone perceived as not American enough, the Right could command their support for anything, without the need to dress it up in proper academic justifications, surely. Indeed, isn’t that what “America First” did?
Culture. The Left understand this, mastered it then screwed the pooch as they decided to rub the other side’s face in it. I give you Disney. I know people who would probably describe themselves as fairly liberal who are sick to the back teeth with blatant social justice narratives in popular culture. That most of the output is also dire on virtually every other level only makes it a more potent stick with which to beat the Left.
As is becoming increasingly apparent, the “do-gooder ethic” means compassion for some and utter callousness towards others: callousness towards the white working class, callousness towards high achievers forced to step aside for less well qualified members of a protected victim class; callousness towards women, who out of compassion for a tiny group of men are expected to forfeit their privacy, safety, sports and even the words they use to describe themselves; callousness towards all those who because of the influx of illegal migrants are struggling to access services and to find affordable housing, let alone a job that pays a living wage; callousness towards children, whose innocence and right to truth are under assault from those very people who should be defending them; callousness towards our own countryside, which with solar arrays and wind turbines is increasingly metamorphosing into an industrial landscape in which beauty and bird life are knowingly destroyed all for the sake of power – in both senses of the word.
Given that what offends us most about all of the above cases is the flagrant unfairness, I would suggest that the resurgent conservatives focus their campaign on restoring fairness or what used to be known as equity.
A very good question. Maybe the conservative intellectual “Trojan horse” should be a combination of a relentless focus on results and a mission to translate woke terms into plain English.
”By their fruits, ye shall know them”. DEI courses which increase unconscious bias as measured by the Yale tests. Cities rendered unliveable by defunding the police. Teenagers fast tracked to mutilation to their subsequent regret by an insistence on “affirming” their identities. An aversion to practical measures to help Caribbean boys in London schools. Etc etc.
Ultimately, the point is that progressives are being guided by critical theorists who are obsessed with the “marginalised” not in order to solve their problems or improve their lives but instead to radicalise and mobilise them. The minimal or negative practical consequences of SJ campaigns are not a coincidence but an inherent feature of the approach.
The other leg may be to ensure that the public understand what behind the nice words the progressive camp are pushing for. This is where individuals like Russo are most useful. The success of the progressives is partly explained by institutional capture but it also by their ability to conceal their more wolffish aspirations under nice liberal sheep clothing.
Alex Carnegie (not m3pc7q3ixe).
Quite – how else would these billionaire ‘philanthropists’ be getting away with what they’ve been up to in recent years?
Back in the early part of the 20th century Gramsci viewed the task thus: “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.” It had to be that way because there was no way they were going to be achieve their goal via the uncorrupted ballot box.
Most people are well intentioned and more especially the young and idealistic who are particularly vulnerable to indoctrination when the iron fist is concealed in the velvet glove of noble mindedness, fairness and/or kindness.
Hence the focus on ‘education, education, education’ -which of course was double speak for ‘indoctrination, indoctrination, indoctrination’.
The New Left’s own contradictions and self-abnegation of its moral foundations is all that’s required.
Conservatives can demand a return to Constitutional government by the consent of the governed. The “do gooders” demand unchecked power to rule through regulations. They need to meet “the fierce urgency of now” with no delays for legislation or judicial review. The “do gooders” want a dictatorship. Conservatives can object to dictatorship based on the fact that concentrated power is always abused, no matter how good the excuse for it. The reason relatively free market capitalism has given mankind unprecedented prosperity is that it involves more people in decisions than authoritarian alternatives. The “do gooders” want a return to feudalism, dressed up in newspeak.
We could just blow their brains out. Should be sufficient. Violence works particularly against wimps.
The Left’s Trojan Horse succeeded because it used an outer casing of moral superiority to challenge the (allegedly) prejudiced, complacent and perhaps corrupt establishment to live up to its own professed moral values [civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, fair deal for all – that sort of thing].
The do-gooder ethic is very catchy. Most people don’t like to see themselves as colluding in an unjust tyranny. So what kind of Trojan Horse can the resurgent conservatives hope to deploy in order to subvert this new ultra-moral establishment of SJWs?
There is nothing new about current ruling class behaviour. Since time immemorial elites have used tribal, racial and gender division to distract the larger population from their expropriatory activities.
Since at least 2008 we have been living through the largest upward transfer of wealth in history. It’s hardly surprising that the Peter Flavels of the world should be up to their old tricks again.
“We are the 99%”. There was a real risk that the majority would unite against the super rich. Luckily for them, and quite coincidentally I’m sure, along came wokeness.
And lo, the 99% did fight amongst themselves, tearing each other apart as they argue who is the most pathetic victim in need of handouts and special advantages.
And the rich went right back to getting richer, unmolested by demands to pay more taxes.
You speak for equity. And how has that worked out in states that purportedly pushed that?
I see previous unequally distributed but broadly based wealth, supplanted broadly based poverty with a small privileged leadership, e.g. Venezuela. Further back in time, the USSR and Communist China provided better living conditions for the populace in direct proportion to their tolerance for income inequality, and, like Venezuela, always had a privileged leadership. Favoring equity of outcomes in practice in my opinion yields poverty without equity.
“We are the 99%”. There was a real risk that the majority would unite against the super rich. Luckily for them, and quite coincidentally I’m sure, along came wokeness.
And lo, the 99% did fight amongst themselves, tearing each other apart as they argue who is the most pathetic victim in need of handouts and special advantages.
And the rich went right back to getting richer, unmolested by demands to pay more taxes.
You speak for equity. And how has that worked out in states that purportedly pushed that?
I see previous unequally distributed but broadly based wealth, supplanted broadly based poverty with a small privileged leadership, e.g. Venezuela. Further back in time, the USSR and Communist China provided better living conditions for the populace in direct proportion to their tolerance for income inequality, and, like Venezuela, always had a privileged leadership. Favoring equity of outcomes in practice in my opinion yields poverty without equity.
There is nothing new about current ruling class behaviour. Since time immemorial elites have used tribal, racial and gender division to distract the larger population from their expropriatory activities.
Since at least 2008 we have been living through the largest upward transfer of wealth in history. It’s hardly surprising that the Peter Flavels of the world should be up to their old tricks again.
Apologies for being rather late to this, but Rufo isn’t describing how we got to today’s bitter culture war, he’s discussing the morbid symptoms; Davis, Friere, Bell; ideological capture.
Mary ‘would have liked a glimmer or two of reflection on why leftist ideas gained such traction’.
OK, here goes. The division in society is not between black and white, male and female, cis and trans, old and young, but between Romanticism and Enlightenment Thinking. A Romantic looks at a shiny surface and says ‘that makes me feel x’.
Romanticism is subjective; gender. Enlightenment thinking is objective; sex. Romanticism looks at racism and says that makes me feel sad; equity of outcome. Enlightenment thinking looks at racism and has a dream (imperfectly realised) that children should be judged by their character, not by the colour of their skins. Romanticism looks at high rents and says that makes me feel sad; rent controls. Enlightenment thinking looks at 250 years of microeconomic theory and empirical evidence from the past and present – San Francisco, Berlin – and suggests perhaps not.
Enlightenment thinking – any thinking – is hard work. A Romantic looks at hard, complex, often contradictory, often counterintuitive, thinking and says ‘that is exclusionary’. That’s why it’s gone in the bin; thinking for yourself is actively discouraged. And that’s why it’s not really possible to engage rationally with a Romantic as an Enlightenment thinker – it’s like comparing apples to oranges. It’s a different Register, a different way of interacting with the world.
Now, that’s not to seek to strike out Romanticism. ‘On Westminster Bridge’ is a masterpiece of Romanticism … but you wouldn’t get Wordsworth to build Westminster Bridge, would you?
“… what won’t our passions do once reason is darkened? …if reason is wanting, madness results …” “The Book of her Foundations” Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582).
Or – Feelings v Facts. Of course a healthy society needs a balance between the two, sadly an imbalance one way prompts a correction the other way.
Or – Feelings v Facts. Of course a healthy society needs a balance between the two, sadly an imbalance one way prompts a correction the other way.
Apologies for being rather late to this, but Rufo isn’t describing how we got to today’s bitter culture war, he’s discussing the morbid symptoms; Davis, Friere, Bell; ideological capture.
Mary ‘would have liked a glimmer or two of reflection on why leftist ideas gained such traction’.
OK, here goes. The division in society is not between black and white, male and female, cis and trans, old and young, but between Romanticism and Enlightenment Thinking. A Romantic looks at a shiny surface and says ‘that makes me feel x’.
Romanticism is subjective; gender. Enlightenment thinking is objective; sex. Romanticism looks at racism and says that makes me feel sad; equity of outcome. Enlightenment thinking looks at racism and has a dream (imperfectly realised) that children should be judged by their character, not by the colour of their skins. Romanticism looks at high rents and says that makes me feel sad; rent controls. Enlightenment thinking looks at 250 years of microeconomic theory and empirical evidence from the past and present – San Francisco, Berlin – and suggests perhaps not.
Enlightenment thinking – any thinking – is hard work. A Romantic looks at hard, complex, often contradictory, often counterintuitive, thinking and says ‘that is exclusionary’. That’s why it’s gone in the bin; thinking for yourself is actively discouraged. And that’s why it’s not really possible to engage rationally with a Romantic as an Enlightenment thinker – it’s like comparing apples to oranges. It’s a different Register, a different way of interacting with the world.
Now, that’s not to seek to strike out Romanticism. ‘On Westminster Bridge’ is a masterpiece of Romanticism … but you wouldn’t get Wordsworth to build Westminster Bridge, would you?
“… what won’t our passions do once reason is darkened? …if reason is wanting, madness results …” “The Book of her Foundations” Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582).
The alternative is some sort of tragic accelerationism, so I think I prefer Rufo’s way forward.
The alternative is some sort of tragic accelerationism, so I think I prefer Rufo’s way forward.
I understand politics through the lens of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, that it’s all about the friends smashing the enemy.
For Marx, the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, everything was to save the workers by smashing the bourgoisie. How did that turn out?
For Sixties liberals, the answer was to save the blacks by smashing Jim Crow. How’s that coming along, cupcakes?
For 2020s liberals, the answer is to save the Oppressed Peoples by smashing the White Oppressors.
Our problem is to find a way to educate the educated class to the crazy notion that the meaning of life, the universe, everything is not politics.
I guess that’s why your understanding of politics looks a bit narrow.
Marx’s legacy is big, complex and interesting. But one thing it isn’t an unmitigated a disaster. Unless you loathe universal education and the franchise etc.
And I’m not sure how to answer your question about Jim Crow. The work appears not to be complete but are you really suggesting that it would have been better if segregation hadn’t ended?
As to what the liberals of the 2020s are trying to achieve, I don’t think you’ve quite captured it.
Marx’s legacy? Big, certainly – to the tune of 100 million deaths. Same murderous result in wildly different settings: China, Russia, Cambodia, Ethiopia. Complex? Not really. The natural result of fomenting “class hatred” and totalitarian control, in turn the only possible result of trying to make everybody “equal”. Interesting? Only as an example of human stupidity. Not very interesting to live in one of those grey, Marxist sh*tholes. If your antagonist’s understanding is narrow – and it certainly is – yours is not much wider, unblushingly apologising as you do for an outlook which smelt of mass murder from the start and now – to anyone with a nose – stinks of historic genocides.
So are Nietzsche and Wagner on the hook for the murders of all their historical self-declared fanboys? How about Jesus for all the killing done in his supposed name? I take major issue with much of what Marx said and don’t agree with any of his fanboys, now or then, but how many people did old Karl arm or injure himself? I’m not saying he is blameless–although, when convenient, you do seem to regard right and wrong as hobgoblins of provincial wokeness anyway–but he is not flat-out on the hook for all the murders people used him to try and justify either.
*Also, if the farthest right dictators had lasted as long as the longest-lived in China and Russia, where do you think the death-tally would stand?
*Extremism and readiness to kill in the name of ideology is bad, wherever and from whomever it emerges.
Oh dear. Wagner was a musician. His few literary efforts had limited impact and did not recommend large scale violence; nor do his admirers (please refrain from vulgarisms like “fanboys”) value him for much more than his music.
On the other hand, large scale violence was integral to Marxist theory which fetishized civil conflict as “revolution”, the “midwife of history”, with whole classes of society regarded as legitimate targets, not simply during the process of upheaval but for an indefinite period thereafter. As extremist racists view minorities, so do Marxists view the so-called “bourgeoisie”.
And isn’t the relative lack of right wing dictators itself a telling sign? And isn’t the reason they rarely last as long as their red rivals down to their retirement in favour of democracy (Pinochet versus Castro)? And isn’t it a fact that those right wing dictators who did last a long time had nothing like the deadly impact of their Marxist contemporaries – for example, Franco versus Pol Pot?
Your other points are silly. “Right” and “wrong” are not the lenses through which to view history; they should be reserved to the present and to any time which can be legitimately viewed as sharing modern premises – ie, not Tudor England, not the ancient world and so on, but yes twentieth century Russia and Germany.
Easy there genius. Don’t lose patience with your inferiors, especially when they are so numerous. You prefer hard-right extremism, and contort yourself into all sorts of apologies for it, at least when it is compared to left-wing extremism.
I am not using the simplistic moralism you accuse me of, but attempting to follow and advocate a nonviolent or at least not eager-to-burn-down-and-kill pathway. No rigid, let alone self-certain or meanspirited extreme walks that path. You dish out provocations and insults but you cannot take them, nor do you imagine that you would ever deserve them in return, because you believe you have a special, or at least very generous hold on reality. That’s certainly how it seems to me. I can see that I poked at your defense of Bloody Mary in a way that has riled you up, understandably so to an extent, but now you are way over the top, man.
Total failure to answer any of the points – especially concerning the inherently bloodthirsty nature of Marxism. Dear, oh dear…
I agree that Marx endorsed violence in service his utopian pipe dream So does A.H.’s more-discredited little memoir of “his struggle”. My point is that the followers of both should be held to account for their own words and actions, not let off the hook because of the Big Bad source texts they were misled by. You don’t respond to my points, nor acknowledge any validity in my perspective, so that’s not what I’d call a good-faith argument, let alone a worthwhile discussion.
You are just trying to “win” (yes, “scare quotes”) in front of a favorably disposed audience, a type of performance the world has no shortage of these days.
I agree that Marx endorsed violence in service his utopian pipe dream So does A.H.’s more-discredited little memoir of “his struggle”. My point is that the followers of both should be held to account for their own words and actions, not let off the hook because of the Big Bad source texts they were misled by. You don’t respond to my points, nor acknowledge any validity in my perspective, so that’s not what I’d call a good-faith argument, let alone a worthwhile discussion.
You are just trying to “win” (yes, “scare quotes”) in front of a favorably disposed audience, a type of performance the world has no shortage of these days.
Total failure to answer any of the points – especially concerning the inherently bloodthirsty nature of Marxism. Dear, oh dear…
Easy there genius. Don’t lose patience with your inferiors, especially when they are so numerous. You prefer hard-right extremism, and contort yourself into all sorts of apologies for it, at least when it is compared to left-wing extremism.
I am not using the simplistic moralism you accuse me of, but attempting to follow and advocate a nonviolent or at least not eager-to-burn-down-and-kill pathway. No rigid, let alone self-certain or meanspirited extreme walks that path. You dish out provocations and insults but you cannot take them, nor do you imagine that you would ever deserve them in return, because you believe you have a special, or at least very generous hold on reality. That’s certainly how it seems to me. I can see that I poked at your defense of Bloody Mary in a way that has riled you up, understandably so to an extent, but now you are way over the top, man.
Your last point is of course right and thank you for it. But the question remains: No sooner did the French declare “liberty, equality and fraternity,”than 265,000 heads were separated from bodies. Why? What did Nietzsche know when he predicted that “there will never be enough water to wash away all the blood?”
Yes, there’s is some false equivalency there, I admit. But he is often cited as a source text for A.H. and his minions. I’ve read some of what Marx, Nietzsche, and even A.H. wrote (the latter for a required paper on holoca— denial). I have my own personal hierarchy of badness among the three. (You can probably guess). But while I think that two out of three of these men were intellectually brilliant (Friedrich only until he went insane) I think that all of them thought and wrote horrible things, especially in the worst particulars. I see validity in some of the who-was-worse talk, but it just doesn’t seem that crucial to me. In my opinion, all the writings of all three should be studied only in context, with careful attention to their historical influence. And I would not say that about too many other authors I’m aware of, though contextual frameworks can be useful if they’re not overused.
What do you mean by “false equivalence?” The modern world separated itself from the ancient world by rejecting the idea of human virtue. The modern world embraced the idea that we could “follow our passions” and everything would turn out swimmingly. It is precisely this idea that drove Nietzsche mad. He knew that swimmingly is exactly what it would not turn out to be, and he could not have been more right. Murder instead rained down on us. We ended up not in heaven but in hell. Nothing could be more obvious. And yet we can’t, or won’t, see it. Modern man is a blind giant.
I thought you were still referencing a comparative blood guilt metric–so wearisome, and away from the point of renouncing and resisting ALL bloody tyranny–between the Left and the Right.
The rest of your reply sounds like nostalgia on steroids. The ancient world had plenty of decadence and discontents, that is part of why it collapsed. Read Greek tragedy, indeed all extant Ancient History and tell me it was some model of virtue, in no way hellish or murderous. What specific year do you long to return to?
And you’re assigning prophetic status to Nietzsche? Sure he was clever, but c’mon. He wasn’t driven mad by a notion or series of ideas but by a combination of being in his head so often and, when he wasn’t, seeing so many sex-workers that he got a bad case of syphilis.
I agree that Modern Man is a “blind giant”, but so was Medieval Man, Ancient Man, and Neolithic Man. I understand there are things to learn, preserve, and perhaps restore from earlier times, but these wholesale idealizations: Golden Age, Time of Virtue, etc. are way overblown. “The Golden Age was never the present age”. (Not that this one will ever be).
Nietzsche was driven mad by the same thing Ivan Fyodorovich was driven mad; namely, a brain with the power to see too well.
Sure dude. From Russian fiction to German philosophizing to your admiring ears.
Count me out. To me, those who celebrate Nietzsche, seeing only his insights and not his inextricable cruelty and growing sickness, are people misled by heart-starved brilliance into error, like the fanboys of Freud and Marx.
Reality is that Fasci*m and Nazi*m were response to violence and murders of Marxism/Communism.
If you try to eliminate whole class of people, don’t be surprised they will support whatever ideology gives them greatest chance of survival.
I find it disgusting that I need to asterix certain words but genocidal creed like Communism has a free run in Western education.
Reality is that Fasci*m and Nazi*m were response to violence and murders of Marxism/Communism.
If you try to eliminate whole class of people, don’t be surprised they will support whatever ideology gives them greatest chance of survival.
I find it disgusting that I need to asterix certain words but genocidal creed like Communism has a free run in Western education.
Sure dude. From Russian fiction to German philosophizing to your admiring ears.
Count me out. To me, those who celebrate Nietzsche, seeing only his insights and not his inextricable cruelty and growing sickness, are people misled by heart-starved brilliance into error, like the fanboys of Freud and Marx.
Nietzsche was driven mad by the same thing Ivan Fyodorovich was driven mad; namely, a brain with the power to see too well.
I thought you were still referencing a comparative blood guilt metric–so wearisome, and away from the point of renouncing and resisting ALL bloody tyranny–between the Left and the Right.
The rest of your reply sounds like nostalgia on steroids. The ancient world had plenty of decadence and discontents, that is part of why it collapsed. Read Greek tragedy, indeed all extant Ancient History and tell me it was some model of virtue, in no way hellish or murderous. What specific year do you long to return to?
And you’re assigning prophetic status to Nietzsche? Sure he was clever, but c’mon. He wasn’t driven mad by a notion or series of ideas but by a combination of being in his head so often and, when he wasn’t, seeing so many sex-workers that he got a bad case of syphilis.
I agree that Modern Man is a “blind giant”, but so was Medieval Man, Ancient Man, and Neolithic Man. I understand there are things to learn, preserve, and perhaps restore from earlier times, but these wholesale idealizations: Golden Age, Time of Virtue, etc. are way overblown. “The Golden Age was never the present age”. (Not that this one will ever be).
What do you mean by “false equivalence?” The modern world separated itself from the ancient world by rejecting the idea of human virtue. The modern world embraced the idea that we could “follow our passions” and everything would turn out swimmingly. It is precisely this idea that drove Nietzsche mad. He knew that swimmingly is exactly what it would not turn out to be, and he could not have been more right. Murder instead rained down on us. We ended up not in heaven but in hell. Nothing could be more obvious. And yet we can’t, or won’t, see it. Modern man is a blind giant.
Yes, there’s is some false equivalency there, I admit. But he is often cited as a source text for A.H. and his minions. I’ve read some of what Marx, Nietzsche, and even A.H. wrote (the latter for a required paper on holoca— denial). I have my own personal hierarchy of badness among the three. (You can probably guess). But while I think that two out of three of these men were intellectually brilliant (Friedrich only until he went insane) I think that all of them thought and wrote horrible things, especially in the worst particulars. I see validity in some of the who-was-worse talk, but it just doesn’t seem that crucial to me. In my opinion, all the writings of all three should be studied only in context, with careful attention to their historical influence. And I would not say that about too many other authors I’m aware of, though contextual frameworks can be useful if they’re not overused.
How many people did Hitler personally injure himself? None
You can’t blame Wagner for Hitler because he liked his music, but you can blame Hitler for the actions of his followers who were carrying out the political program that he espoused.
Likewise for Marx.
Lenin, Stalin and Mao set about the business of mass murder at least as quickly on coming to power as Hitler did.
Of course. I agree and I’m not sure why you assume I wouldn’t.
Still, I don’t think there is a one-to-one comparison between a man’s written text and a man with an army and government at his command. There is a more direct complicity in the dictator than the guy with a poison pen.
Let me make this clear: I don’t think the worst bloody tyrannies of the Left were better, but that those of the Right, like those of the Left, were so hideous that they simply must be renounced and guarded against. I am not picking a favorite form of bloody tyranny, and I wish others wouldn’t either. (I am not saying you’ve done this, but many are using a defense-by-death-toll trick that I do not agree with or accept as some form of vindication).
We are not reduced to a choice between polar-opposite tyrannies, nor do center-left (“liberal”) or center-right (“conservative”) policies lead straight to their faintly-related extremes of oligarchical collectivism (state communism) or authoritarian nationalism (fascism). There should not be argumentative defense squads for bloody tyranny of any kind. These malefactors are not fit for trading cards or commemorative statuettes from which you get to pick your favorites!
Why do you class Hitler as of the right?
Because nationalist fascism is prevailingly of the right. Where do Mussolini and Franco and Pinochet belong, if you had to choose? This attempt to assign every historical evil to the Left is a farce, and I hope you haven’t convinced yourself it’s accurate.
Yes, they called themselves National Socialists. The CCP calls themselves a People’s Republic.
Because nationalist fascism is prevailingly of the right. Where do Mussolini and Franco and Pinochet belong, if you had to choose? This attempt to assign every historical evil to the Left is a farce, and I hope you haven’t convinced yourself it’s accurate.
Yes, they called themselves National Socialists. The CCP calls themselves a People’s Republic.
Why do you class Hitler as of the right?
Of course. I agree and I’m not sure why you assume I wouldn’t.
Still, I don’t think there is a one-to-one comparison between a man’s written text and a man with an army and government at his command. There is a more direct complicity in the dictator than the guy with a poison pen.
Let me make this clear: I don’t think the worst bloody tyrannies of the Left were better, but that those of the Right, like those of the Left, were so hideous that they simply must be renounced and guarded against. I am not picking a favorite form of bloody tyranny, and I wish others wouldn’t either. (I am not saying you’ve done this, but many are using a defense-by-death-toll trick that I do not agree with or accept as some form of vindication).
We are not reduced to a choice between polar-opposite tyrannies, nor do center-left (“liberal”) or center-right (“conservative”) policies lead straight to their faintly-related extremes of oligarchical collectivism (state communism) or authoritarian nationalism (fascism). There should not be argumentative defense squads for bloody tyranny of any kind. These malefactors are not fit for trading cards or commemorative statuettes from which you get to pick your favorites!
Oh dear. Wagner was a musician. His few literary efforts had limited impact and did not recommend large scale violence; nor do his admirers (please refrain from vulgarisms like “fanboys”) value him for much more than his music.
On the other hand, large scale violence was integral to Marxist theory which fetishized civil conflict as “revolution”, the “midwife of history”, with whole classes of society regarded as legitimate targets, not simply during the process of upheaval but for an indefinite period thereafter. As extremist racists view minorities, so do Marxists view the so-called “bourgeoisie”.
And isn’t the relative lack of right wing dictators itself a telling sign? And isn’t the reason they rarely last as long as their red rivals down to their retirement in favour of democracy (Pinochet versus Castro)? And isn’t it a fact that those right wing dictators who did last a long time had nothing like the deadly impact of their Marxist contemporaries – for example, Franco versus Pol Pot?
Your other points are silly. “Right” and “wrong” are not the lenses through which to view history; they should be reserved to the present and to any time which can be legitimately viewed as sharing modern premises – ie, not Tudor England, not the ancient world and so on, but yes twentieth century Russia and Germany.
Your last point is of course right and thank you for it. But the question remains: No sooner did the French declare “liberty, equality and fraternity,”than 265,000 heads were separated from bodies. Why? What did Nietzsche know when he predicted that “there will never be enough water to wash away all the blood?”
How many people did Hitler personally injure himself? None
You can’t blame Wagner for Hitler because he liked his music, but you can blame Hitler for the actions of his followers who were carrying out the political program that he espoused.
Likewise for Marx.
Lenin, Stalin and Mao set about the business of mass murder at least as quickly on coming to power as Hitler did.
So are Nietzsche and Wagner on the hook for the murders of all their historical self-declared fanboys? How about Jesus for all the killing done in his supposed name? I take major issue with much of what Marx said and don’t agree with any of his fanboys, now or then, but how many people did old Karl arm or injure himself? I’m not saying he is blameless–although, when convenient, you do seem to regard right and wrong as hobgoblins of provincial wokeness anyway–but he is not flat-out on the hook for all the murders people used him to try and justify either.
*Also, if the farthest right dictators had lasted as long as the longest-lived in China and Russia, where do you think the death-tally would stand?
*Extremism and readiness to kill in the name of ideology is bad, wherever and from whomever it emerges.
Marx’s legacy is 100 million dead. Yep, sure is “interesting”.
100 million is surely a vast understatement. I bet you could get to 100M in China alone.
There’s a reason Stalin sent the 1937 census takers to the Gulag.
True enough But would all of those deaths been averted without Marx, with no other codifier of ideology (Engels et alia) to replace him and provide articulate excuses for bloody tyrants? Did Karl stitch his namesake “ism” out of whole cloth, and in a vacuum?
And how many dead and disappeared would the 3rd reich have tallied if they’d been in global power for the last 80 years? Whoops, here we go with the rather unhelpful comparisons again.
There you go with an utterly disreputable attempt to weigh idle speculation against fact – and the fact is that Soviet Russia, along with all other such regimes, directly inspired by Marxist theory, murdered millions. Why play this down? Why make yourself an accessory after the fact by attempts to excuse and smooth it over? Germany’s regime was one instance – one (let that sink in) – of a non-communist dictatorship which vied with communism for bloodthirstiness. None of the others, not even the Italian regime which allied itself with Germany, got anywhere near the tally of bloodshed reached by the reds. And if you are invoking the Russian role in WWII then remember that Stalin allied himself with Berlin for two years before Barbarossa; and together with his allies he brutally dismembered Poland. As a keen moraliser you should surely have some objection to that?
Gosh! I’m astonished, so Mr Hitler wasn’t the greatest killer of all time? Can that really be true?
Good point, my dear fellow – but I confess, I am terribly tired. I’ve got into a long conversation with an eager young chap who combines assertiveness with oversensitivity – an irony, as I am sure you will be the first to understand (!)
It sometimes worries me that conversations on threads such as these can proceed as arguments without sufficient attention paid to states of mind and heart. I do actually dislike affronting or upsetting people but I equally dislike bowing to insufficient reason and can be a touch too peppery and pointed myself. Ah well. Nice to hear from you, by the way. I shall soon be pouring myself a stiff Scotch.
Last chip shot from across the Atlantic: I know age is quite a relative thing, but thanks for calling me a young chap though I’m 52. Oversensitive and assertive? Not only so, but yes.
Last chip shot from across the Atlantic: I know age is quite a relative thing, but thanks for calling me a young chap though I’m 52. Oversensitive and assertive? Not only so, but yes.
Good point, my dear fellow – but I confess, I am terribly tired. I’ve got into a long conversation with an eager young chap who combines assertiveness with oversensitivity – an irony, as I am sure you will be the first to understand (!)
It sometimes worries me that conversations on threads such as these can proceed as arguments without sufficient attention paid to states of mind and heart. I do actually dislike affronting or upsetting people but I equally dislike bowing to insufficient reason and can be a touch too peppery and pointed myself. Ah well. Nice to hear from you, by the way. I shall soon be pouring myself a stiff Scotch.
To defend any murderous tyranny in comparative terms is far more disreputable. (Reputation as a sly stand-in for morality?). But once the numbers game is invoked, deaths-per-year is a valid part of a topic that has been started in bad faith, in effect to defend another tyranny,
I acknowledge that the actual death-toll of world communism has exceeded fascism, largely according to your earlier (paraphrased) point that people like (or endure) communism better for longer, in more places.
If you’re so broken up–and I’m persuaded that you are, in some real measure–about the destruction of past objects, writing, cathedrals, and cultural legacies, how can you defend the book-burning, destructive “conservatism” of fascists just because you like the other policies better–or maybe because you think they’d largely burn books you disagree with anyway (?). And areyou at allbroken up about the human toll of murderous tyranny?*I don’t know your own views with any certaintyThe authoritarian fascists were illiberal and against minority rights, but they are NOT conservative in any strong or sensible sense, except by tricks of inverse association. Nor were the purge-squad communists made liberal by their disregard for and hostility toward the legacy of the past. To say otherwise is disingenuous, or at least mistaken reasoning. There is a closer association in each case, but it is not close. Hitler and Franco are not along some unbroken continuum with Margaret Thatcher and Edmund Burke, nor Stalin and Mao with Robert Walpole and John Stuart Mill.
I am not attempting to downplay the tyrannies of the Left, but pushing back against comparative-apologists–including you–for the tyrannies of the Right. That is what has been happening here, in something like an echo-chamber of mutual self-congratulation. I would object as forcefully to those attempting similar self-serving apologies for murderous tyrannies on the Left, and have done so where that is prevalent, like it sometimes is at the NYT. I do not accept that I need to choose or defend one or another form of bloody tyranny. I was/am responding to the oblique defense-by-numbers trick that is so often attempted, not advancing a defense of my own.
As if fascists death squads are vindicated, or somehow rendered benign by their less horrific body count…Oh dear!!
You’re obviously bright and mentally energetic even in your senectitude, but “the mediator between the head and the hand must be the heart”
Toodles and good luck, in any reputable enterprise.
Gosh! I’m astonished, so Mr Hitler wasn’t the greatest killer of all time? Can that really be true?
To defend any murderous tyranny in comparative terms is far more disreputable. (Reputation as a sly stand-in for morality?). But once the numbers game is invoked, deaths-per-year is a valid part of a topic that has been started in bad faith, in effect to defend another tyranny,
I acknowledge that the actual death-toll of world communism has exceeded fascism, largely according to your earlier (paraphrased) point that people like (or endure) communism better for longer, in more places.
If you’re so broken up–and I’m persuaded that you are, in some real measure–about the destruction of past objects, writing, cathedrals, and cultural legacies, how can you defend the book-burning, destructive “conservatism” of fascists just because you like the other policies better–or maybe because you think they’d largely burn books you disagree with anyway (?). And areyou at allbroken up about the human toll of murderous tyranny?*I don’t know your own views with any certaintyThe authoritarian fascists were illiberal and against minority rights, but they are NOT conservative in any strong or sensible sense, except by tricks of inverse association. Nor were the purge-squad communists made liberal by their disregard for and hostility toward the legacy of the past. To say otherwise is disingenuous, or at least mistaken reasoning. There is a closer association in each case, but it is not close. Hitler and Franco are not along some unbroken continuum with Margaret Thatcher and Edmund Burke, nor Stalin and Mao with Robert Walpole and John Stuart Mill.
I am not attempting to downplay the tyrannies of the Left, but pushing back against comparative-apologists–including you–for the tyrannies of the Right. That is what has been happening here, in something like an echo-chamber of mutual self-congratulation. I would object as forcefully to those attempting similar self-serving apologies for murderous tyrannies on the Left, and have done so where that is prevalent, like it sometimes is at the NYT. I do not accept that I need to choose or defend one or another form of bloody tyranny. I was/am responding to the oblique defense-by-numbers trick that is so often attempted, not advancing a defense of my own.
As if fascists death squads are vindicated, or somehow rendered benign by their less horrific body count…Oh dear!!
You’re obviously bright and mentally energetic even in your senectitude, but “the mediator between the head and the hand must be the heart”
Toodles and good luck, in any reputable enterprise.
There you go with an utterly disreputable attempt to weigh idle speculation against fact – and the fact is that Soviet Russia, along with all other such regimes, directly inspired by Marxist theory, murdered millions. Why play this down? Why make yourself an accessory after the fact by attempts to excuse and smooth it over? Germany’s regime was one instance – one (let that sink in) – of a non-communist dictatorship which vied with communism for bloodthirstiness. None of the others, not even the Italian regime which allied itself with Germany, got anywhere near the tally of bloodshed reached by the reds. And if you are invoking the Russian role in WWII then remember that Stalin allied himself with Berlin for two years before Barbarossa; and together with his allies he brutally dismembered Poland. As a keen moraliser you should surely have some objection to that?
True enough But would all of those deaths been averted without Marx, with no other codifier of ideology (Engels et alia) to replace him and provide articulate excuses for bloody tyrants? Did Karl stitch his namesake “ism” out of whole cloth, and in a vacuum?
And how many dead and disappeared would the 3rd reich have tallied if they’d been in global power for the last 80 years? Whoops, here we go with the rather unhelpful comparisons again.
100 million is surely a vast understatement. I bet you could get to 100M in China alone.
There’s a reason Stalin sent the 1937 census takers to the Gulag.
Yes, he is really suggesting it, but with sneering insinuating at the “cupcakes” who opposed segregation and de facto disenfranchisement of blacks, instead of a direct endorsement of the Jim Crow South. It is repugnant and little shocking, but try not to be surprised. There is a vocal minority of outright alt-right white-power types here, many of whom at least think they would be glad to find themselves in the United States of 1850, retaining their complexions of course. Most won’t come right out and announce themselves as Lost Cause romantics though.
Marx is not responsible for universal education and voting.
I am not surprised that commie like you thinks Marx has something to teach humanity.
Let’s take two examples from different part of the world.
West Germany and East Germany.
South Korea and North Korea.
West Germany and South Korea both prosperous countries.
East Germany (does not even exist) and North Korea circled by barbed wire to stop population escaping.
Lessons are obvious for anyone with IQ above amoeba.
Marxism/Communism will never work.
It only offers poverty, slavery and violence.
Marx’s legacy? Big, certainly – to the tune of 100 million deaths. Same murderous result in wildly different settings: China, Russia, Cambodia, Ethiopia. Complex? Not really. The natural result of fomenting “class hatred” and totalitarian control, in turn the only possible result of trying to make everybody “equal”. Interesting? Only as an example of human stupidity. Not very interesting to live in one of those grey, Marxist sh*tholes. If your antagonist’s understanding is narrow – and it certainly is – yours is not much wider, unblushingly apologising as you do for an outlook which smelt of mass murder from the start and now – to anyone with a nose – stinks of historic genocides.
Marx’s legacy is 100 million dead. Yep, sure is “interesting”.
Yes, he is really suggesting it, but with sneering insinuating at the “cupcakes” who opposed segregation and de facto disenfranchisement of blacks, instead of a direct endorsement of the Jim Crow South. It is repugnant and little shocking, but try not to be surprised. There is a vocal minority of outright alt-right white-power types here, many of whom at least think they would be glad to find themselves in the United States of 1850, retaining their complexions of course. Most won’t come right out and announce themselves as Lost Cause romantics though.
Marx is not responsible for universal education and voting.
I am not surprised that commie like you thinks Marx has something to teach humanity.
Let’s take two examples from different part of the world.
West Germany and East Germany.
South Korea and North Korea.
West Germany and South Korea both prosperous countries.
East Germany (does not even exist) and North Korea circled by barbed wire to stop population escaping.
Lessons are obvious for anyone with IQ above amoeba.
Marxism/Communism will never work.
It only offers poverty, slavery and violence.
It’s not Liberalism, it’s equitarian Leftism. As he said, this is a post Liberal era.
I guess that’s why your understanding of politics looks a bit narrow.
Marx’s legacy is big, complex and interesting. But one thing it isn’t an unmitigated a disaster. Unless you loathe universal education and the franchise etc.
And I’m not sure how to answer your question about Jim Crow. The work appears not to be complete but are you really suggesting that it would have been better if segregation hadn’t ended?
As to what the liberals of the 2020s are trying to achieve, I don’t think you’ve quite captured it.
It’s not Liberalism, it’s equitarian Leftism. As he said, this is a post Liberal era.
I understand politics through the lens of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, that it’s all about the friends smashing the enemy.
For Marx, the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, everything was to save the workers by smashing the bourgoisie. How did that turn out?
For Sixties liberals, the answer was to save the blacks by smashing Jim Crow. How’s that coming along, cupcakes?
For 2020s liberals, the answer is to save the Oppressed Peoples by smashing the White Oppressors.
Our problem is to find a way to educate the educated class to the crazy notion that the meaning of life, the universe, everything is not politics.
Fascinating. But what we most urgently need is for the Progressive Revolution HERE to be dissected in a similar and forensic manner. We know the US is different. Yet how much of this story – an emergent ‘DEI Bureaucracy’, a complicit detached Elite; the corruption of education; the invention of special Victim groups given elevated/privileged rights in law, the assault on meritocracy and tradition; the hysterias about race and patriarchy supported by the State and propagated via law culture and media..is horribly familiar. There is a pattern to all this and we too must quickly learn to identify how this cancer is being spread, the better to fight it. Battle has barely been joined 20 years after the attack began.
I’ve been railing for years that economics and philosophy should be mandatory subjects in all schools; I now realise that what I thought was missing was just being taught to think for yourself, using reason and logic, and I think this is at the core of what’s changed.
Teachers are rewarded by creating exam machines, not challenging machines who ask awkward questions.
This from The Economist 15 07 23: “For starters, the Conservatives had a plan. Before winning the 2010 general election, they had spent five years in opposition mulling school reforms, diagnosing the problems the system faced. The original sin, according to Nick Gibb, the then-shadow and now current schools minister, was progressive education, which focused too much on teaching children how to think rather than teaching them what they should know. Then they worked out how they wanted to fix it. Curriculums would be overhauled. Reading, writing and maths would trump other topics.”
This DEI push will destroy civilization if it’s successful. You can’t build a modern sewer system on DEI principles. If universities teach DEI to the exclusion of the knowledge needed to keep things going, things won’t keep going. There won’t be people left who know how everything works.
Would not you say that South Africa is perfect template of what future awaits West if low IQ, lazy creatures are put in charge of anything?
Would not you say that South Africa is perfect template of what future awaits West if low IQ, lazy creatures are put in charge of anything?
I’ve been railing for years that economics and philosophy should be mandatory subjects in all schools; I now realise that what I thought was missing was just being taught to think for yourself, using reason and logic, and I think this is at the core of what’s changed.
Teachers are rewarded by creating exam machines, not challenging machines who ask awkward questions.
This from The Economist 15 07 23: “For starters, the Conservatives had a plan. Before winning the 2010 general election, they had spent five years in opposition mulling school reforms, diagnosing the problems the system faced. The original sin, according to Nick Gibb, the then-shadow and now current schools minister, was progressive education, which focused too much on teaching children how to think rather than teaching them what they should know. Then they worked out how they wanted to fix it. Curriculums would be overhauled. Reading, writing and maths would trump other topics.”
This DEI push will destroy civilization if it’s successful. You can’t build a modern sewer system on DEI principles. If universities teach DEI to the exclusion of the knowledge needed to keep things going, things won’t keep going. There won’t be people left who know how everything works.
Fascinating. But what we most urgently need is for the Progressive Revolution HERE to be dissected in a similar and forensic manner. We know the US is different. Yet how much of this story – an emergent ‘DEI Bureaucracy’, a complicit detached Elite; the corruption of education; the invention of special Victim groups given elevated/privileged rights in law, the assault on meritocracy and tradition; the hysterias about race and patriarchy supported by the State and propagated via law culture and media..is horribly familiar. There is a pattern to all this and we too must quickly learn to identify how this cancer is being spread, the better to fight it. Battle has barely been joined 20 years after the attack began.
“Nor have they even succeeded in abolishing class rule, but ‘simply replaced the management’ even as they extended “state-social bureaucracy”.
Well, the Left never wanted to replace class rule, just make themselves the ruling class.
“Nor have they even succeeded in abolishing class rule, but ‘simply replaced the management’ even as they extended “state-social bureaucracy”.
Well, the Left never wanted to replace class rule, just make themselves the ruling class.
> the old world where everyone at least sort-of believed in neutral institutions and equality before the law will be long forgotten.
Sure. Popper’s Paradox. If we behave like The Enemy, how are we better than they are? WWII is instructive. Hitler bombed London, we incinerated Dresden. Any difference? Yes. Hitler had few qualms and, had he had the A bomb, he’s not have hesitated to use it. We agonized over Dresden and really hated to burn it down, but defeat was not an option. After the war we spend billions getting Germany and Japan back on their feet.
In the same way, the purge of the Institutions must be work that is instinctively repugnant to ourselves — firing a wokie because she is a wokie is ideological puritanism not objectively different from the way the woke would fire a conservative for being a conservative.
But defeat is not an option. Let’s do what must be done to *restore* neutrality in the institutions — even tho we must be un-neutral to get there. It is a paradox and the essential thing is to be upfront about exactly that fact. We must use the enemy’s tools to defeat the enemy — then we rebuild just as Dresden was rebuilt.
> the old world where everyone at least sort-of believed in neutral institutions and equality before the law will be long forgotten.
Sure. Popper’s Paradox. If we behave like The Enemy, how are we better than they are? WWII is instructive. Hitler bombed London, we incinerated Dresden. Any difference? Yes. Hitler had few qualms and, had he had the A bomb, he’s not have hesitated to use it. We agonized over Dresden and really hated to burn it down, but defeat was not an option. After the war we spend billions getting Germany and Japan back on their feet.
In the same way, the purge of the Institutions must be work that is instinctively repugnant to ourselves — firing a wokie because she is a wokie is ideological puritanism not objectively different from the way the woke would fire a conservative for being a conservative.
But defeat is not an option. Let’s do what must be done to *restore* neutrality in the institutions — even tho we must be un-neutral to get there. It is a paradox and the essential thing is to be upfront about exactly that fact. We must use the enemy’s tools to defeat the enemy — then we rebuild just as Dresden was rebuilt.
Isn’t Mary Harrington’s point that it is much easier, not to mention more fun, to destroy than preserve? The destroyers have the advantage. For those on the side of preservation to take up the tactics of destruction, is a form of capitulation. The good must fight with one arm tied behind its backs. The truth is handicapped in the same was against the false. If I am on track here, she is suggesting to the author about whom she writes that his task is much harder than he takes it to be.
I can’t tell what her point is. Which concerns me. What is Rufo’s “Trojan Horse”? You can’t launch a Trojan horse by telling everyone that is what you up to. The comments are a better read
She accuses him of a post modern approach – without supporting evidence.
I can’t tell what her point is. Which concerns me. What is Rufo’s “Trojan Horse”? You can’t launch a Trojan horse by telling everyone that is what you up to. The comments are a better read
She accuses him of a post modern approach – without supporting evidence.
Isn’t Mary Harrington’s point that it is much easier, not to mention more fun, to destroy than preserve? The destroyers have the advantage. For those on the side of preservation to take up the tactics of destruction, is a form of capitulation. The good must fight with one arm tied behind its backs. The truth is handicapped in the same was against the false. If I am on track here, she is suggesting to the author about whom she writes that his task is much harder than he takes it to be.
This discussion of political labels and their lineages has become acrimonious and therefore less than helpful. I wasn’t planning a reply to any one comment, and doing so is probably too late by now anyway, but here goes.
Words such as “conservative,” “liberal” and “revolutionary” are very, very relative and therefore elastic. Their meanings vary depending on historical context and political expediency. An emphasis on due process, for example, seems conservative today and is a key feature of Republican rhetoric (with varying degrees of consistency), but it was once a key feature of Democratic rhetoric. If you go back far enough, of course, due process was a radical innovation and therefore revolutionary. On the other hand, Democrats once supported racial segregation but now demand racial equity.
Here’s another example. In some ways, the Nazis were conservative. They lavished attention and money on the revival of Germanic folklore, for instance, and pre-Christian religious festivals. They glorified Germanic heroes who had resisted the Romans. They celebrated the primitive world of their ancestors, not what they considered the effete (Christian) and alien (Jewish) world of “civilization.” They idealized the “organic” medieval community (Gemeinschaft), not the bureaucratic and impersonal institutions of commercial and industrial states (Gesellschaft). Despite misgivings, moreover, they tolerated even the churches (within limits). All of this looked like the conservation of tradition and also, not incidentally, a bulwark against Communist revolution. Consequently, the Nazis earned enthusiastic support not only from romantic academics but also (ambivalent) support from the conservative peasantry.
But even though the Nazis lived up to their rhetoric about a “new barbarism,” the Nazi state was anything but traditional or conservative. On the contrary, it was as revolutionary as any Communist state. From the get-go, compulsory youth groups encouraged the dissolution of traditional class barriers and undermined even the traditional family structure (partly by encouraging children to inform on parents or relatives who were less than enthusiastic Nazis). This led directly to the Lebensborn stud farms, where SS officers mated with Aryan women. Other policies included forced sterilization of the unfit and euthanasia, which provoked hostility from traditional segments of the population. The attention to meticulous records and industrial efficiency, even of mass murder, was nothing if not bureaucratic, impersonal. The armed forces relied on the most modern technologies and weapons. Ideological propaganda was disseminated through mass communication (notably radio and film). This was not in any way a return to the traditional monarchy, let alone to the misty forests of early Teutonic tribes.
In short, I think that we should spend less time on classifying each other and more time on identifying danger wherever we find it and fighting it.
Excellent comment, Paul, both instructive and helpful. Though I’m mainly in agreement there too, I could take issue with aspects of your political party-based characterizations, but I’d rather thank you for your detailed, calm analysis of the you-know-whos, and celebrate your concluding, one-sentence paragraph.
Excellent comment, Paul, both instructive and helpful. Though I’m mainly in agreement there too, I could take issue with aspects of your political party-based characterizations, but I’d rather thank you for your detailed, calm analysis of the you-know-whos, and celebrate your concluding, one-sentence paragraph.
This discussion of political labels and their lineages has become acrimonious and therefore less than helpful. I wasn’t planning a reply to any one comment, and doing so is probably too late by now anyway, but here goes.
Words such as “conservative,” “liberal” and “revolutionary” are very, very relative and therefore elastic. Their meanings vary depending on historical context and political expediency. An emphasis on due process, for example, seems conservative today and is a key feature of Republican rhetoric (with varying degrees of consistency), but it was once a key feature of Democratic rhetoric. If you go back far enough, of course, due process was a radical innovation and therefore revolutionary. On the other hand, Democrats once supported racial segregation but now demand racial equity.
Here’s another example. In some ways, the Nazis were conservative. They lavished attention and money on the revival of Germanic folklore, for instance, and pre-Christian religious festivals. They glorified Germanic heroes who had resisted the Romans. They celebrated the primitive world of their ancestors, not what they considered the effete (Christian) and alien (Jewish) world of “civilization.” They idealized the “organic” medieval community (Gemeinschaft), not the bureaucratic and impersonal institutions of commercial and industrial states (Gesellschaft). Despite misgivings, moreover, they tolerated even the churches (within limits). All of this looked like the conservation of tradition and also, not incidentally, a bulwark against Communist revolution. Consequently, the Nazis earned enthusiastic support not only from romantic academics but also (ambivalent) support from the conservative peasantry.
But even though the Nazis lived up to their rhetoric about a “new barbarism,” the Nazi state was anything but traditional or conservative. On the contrary, it was as revolutionary as any Communist state. From the get-go, compulsory youth groups encouraged the dissolution of traditional class barriers and undermined even the traditional family structure (partly by encouraging children to inform on parents or relatives who were less than enthusiastic Nazis). This led directly to the Lebensborn stud farms, where SS officers mated with Aryan women. Other policies included forced sterilization of the unfit and euthanasia, which provoked hostility from traditional segments of the population. The attention to meticulous records and industrial efficiency, even of mass murder, was nothing if not bureaucratic, impersonal. The armed forces relied on the most modern technologies and weapons. Ideological propaganda was disseminated through mass communication (notably radio and film). This was not in any way a return to the traditional monarchy, let alone to the misty forests of early Teutonic tribes.
In short, I think that we should spend less time on classifying each other and more time on identifying danger wherever we find it and fighting it.
I think this is very Western centric. Trojan horse was only used because direct attempts to storm the city failed. Why do we need Trojan Horse? If the woke wins, would it mean the end of civilization? Not at all. It will be a suicide of the Western civilization only. Do you really think that people in India, China etc will let a suicidal cult to cut off their energy sources, and castrate their children? To destroy their lives? No, it is just the Western filth that is tired of living.
And even in the West, once they destroy the food and energy supplies, starve and freeze enough human beings and castrate enough children, people will turn against them. But COVID showed us that the sheeple can be manipulated almost to no end, so I am not very optimistic.
I think this is very Western centric. Trojan horse was only used because direct attempts to storm the city failed. Why do we need Trojan Horse? If the woke wins, would it mean the end of civilization? Not at all. It will be a suicide of the Western civilization only. Do you really think that people in India, China etc will let a suicidal cult to cut off their energy sources, and castrate their children? To destroy their lives? No, it is just the Western filth that is tired of living.
And even in the West, once they destroy the food and energy supplies, starve and freeze enough human beings and castrate enough children, people will turn against them. But COVID showed us that the sheeple can be manipulated almost to no end, so I am not very optimistic.
The first step to rebelling is having the courage to say what you really think. Fortunately, this can still happen in the US.
I concluded some time ago that I was done worrying about who I might offend and I concluded that just holding the opinions I do, voting them, and then sharing them with like minded people was not enough, that I had to actively let people know what I am thinking and consequences be damned.
To that end, I went out and purchased t-shirts that express my own counter culture opinions and I wear them knowing that I will be judged by some.
Among these…
-Team TERF
-No Child is Born in the Wrong Body
-Mom’s For Liberty DAD
-I Identify as a Threat – My pronouns are “Try Me”
-Woke is the New Stupid
I have found that I get a fair number of shocked looks but nobody has come up and screamed at me yet and I have had a number of people come up and very quietly tell me that they love these shirts, particularly “Woke is the New Stupid”. That they feel they need to almost whisper it to me tells me all I need to know.
I urge all those with similar counter left views to do the same. Actively put out into the world your opinion without fear of offending people or being judged or to avoid conflict. Believe me, the other side has no such hesitation and I think you will find that there are many people out there that will agree with you and support you.
The first step to rebelling is having the courage to say what you really think. Fortunately, this can still happen in the US.
I concluded some time ago that I was done worrying about who I might offend and I concluded that just holding the opinions I do, voting them, and then sharing them with like minded people was not enough, that I had to actively let people know what I am thinking and consequences be damned.
To that end, I went out and purchased t-shirts that express my own counter culture opinions and I wear them knowing that I will be judged by some.
Among these…
-Team TERF
-No Child is Born in the Wrong Body
-Mom’s For Liberty DAD
-I Identify as a Threat – My pronouns are “Try Me”
-Woke is the New Stupid
I have found that I get a fair number of shocked looks but nobody has come up and screamed at me yet and I have had a number of people come up and very quietly tell me that they love these shirts, particularly “Woke is the New Stupid”. That they feel they need to almost whisper it to me tells me all I need to know.
I urge all those with similar counter left views to do the same. Actively put out into the world your opinion without fear of offending people or being judged or to avoid conflict. Believe me, the other side has no such hesitation and I think you will find that there are many people out there that will agree with you and support you.
He was magnificent on Megyn Kelley show just now
He was magnificent on Megyn Kelley show just now
“The old world where everyone at least sort-of believed in neutral institutions and equality before the law will be long forgotten”
I thin that world pre-dated the war
“The old world where everyone at least sort-of believed in neutral institutions and equality before the law will be long forgotten”
I thin that world pre-dated the war
It involves re-taking the cultural and intellectual institutions by encouraging those of a small ‘c’ inclination to get involved in: health, education, charities, the arts, theatre, film and television, writing, advertising. There is no reason why these activities should be monopolised by the left. Since they have been taken over by the woke left, they are failing dramatically.
It involves re-taking the cultural and intellectual institutions by encouraging those of a small ‘c’ inclination to get involved in: health, education, charities, the arts, theatre, film and television, writing, advertising. There is no reason why these activities should be monopolised by the left. Since they have been taken over by the woke left, they are failing dramatically.
As at 07.40 BST. 20.07.2023. 73 of the comments out of 119 have been culled!
Why? And is Legal action pending?
HALLELUJAH! All restored by 0930.BST. Weird?
As at 07.40 BST. 20.07.2023. 73 of the comments out of 119 have been culled!
Why? And is Legal action pending?
HALLELUJAH! All restored by 0930.BST. Weird?
“I would have liked a glimmer or two of reflection on why leftist ideas gained such traction;” The left dominates education. This is the major tool they have
“I would have liked a glimmer or two of reflection on why leftist ideas gained such traction;” The left dominates education. This is the major tool they have
Word.
Ms. Harrington says it all yet again. Well almost. I would love to know her most direct and plain opinion on all of this…
I’m not sayin’ the Church didn’t need a thorough scrub-up, I’m just saying Nominalism was a bad idea—and now here we are.
This is the most enamored-with-chaos and ideologically-bent thing I’ve seen from Harrington. In order to move forward without needless bloodshed and a bloody aftermath of ongoing madness the far extremes of both Left and Right must both be opposed. It should not be about choosing the correct extreme and aligning yourself accordingly, though I know it is for far too many right now.
This is the most enamored-with-chaos and ideologically-bent thing I’ve seen from Harrington. In order to move forward without needless bloodshed and a bloody aftermath of ongoing madness the far extremes of both Left and Right must both be opposed. It should not be about choosing the correct extreme and aligning yourself accordingly, though I know it is for far too many right now.
A conservative who is a revolutionary, is then no longer a conservative. The type of pushback Rufo is advocating is fine (and perhaps even necessary, although personally I’m dubious on this), in that like everything it comes with benefits and costs. But no one should pretend it’s conservative.
You are making the classic leftist error of equating conservative with ‘reactionary’.
No he isn’t. A conservative proceeds cautiously and avoid sudden changes or wild polemics. A conservative revolution is a contradiction in terms. The snag is that it’s very difficult to engage in a circus of ideas with idiots, without becoming de facto similarly idiotic in the process. Remember, the woke brigade are essentially secular ideologists. They have more of the characteristics of blood guilt cults than of rational political movements. Very difficult to engage rationally with any of them.
That’s just wrong. Franco led a conservative revolution in Spain. Napoleon led a conservative revolution in France. Call it counter-revolution if you want. If the radicals have enacted a revolution, you need vast, rapid change to put things back where they should be.
The idea that if a Marxist state has been imposed on your country, conservatives should act to preserve it is simply bonkers.
Precisely. Yet that is what many a weak and cynical soi-disant “conservative” is up to in the west.
You are using “conservative” and “reactionary nationalism” as close synonyms. That is wrong. The mid-20th century right-wing autocrats were no more conservative than the left-wing dictators of the same period were “liberal”.
Of course they were conservative and on every measure. Egalitarian or in favour of old hierarchies? The latter. Libertarian with regard to amorous conduct or deeply repressive? The latter. Keen on modernism, modern art and jazz or strictly classical and Victorian? The latter. On and on the list goes, adding up to the tightest, most straight laced corset of conservatism in the twentieth century – only the Irish Republic competed with them and that was all but a dictatorship under De Valera. Nationalism, moreover, is nothing but Conservatism updated for the era of mass politics, for instead of justifying existing institutions as the results of Divine Providence it does so as the expressions of the historic will of the people – ethnically defined: not a demos but an ethnos. This fitted hand in glove with clerical and traditional authorities because it gave a raft of new arguments to the diminishing power of religion.
Nein.
*The notion that a true “conservative” joins an authoritarian nationalist purge, complete with mass-murder and book burnings, is as far away from a sensible use of the term conservative as calling the Bolsheviks “liberal”. The far-far left and far-far Right begin to mirror each other far more than they can usually admit at some point out on the far fringes.
In your zero-sum war games: Was the final solution itself somehow conservative?
Never bring up exaggerated examples.Casual reference to the Holocaust should be off limits.
Leaving that aside, any political movement is tempted to violence and recourses to violence – so, yes, certain forms of repression are conservative and have conservative aims just as others are revolutionary and have revolutionary aims.
Realising this is not the same as condoning it in every setting.
Second, nationalism – which may or may not be violent depending on choices, circumstances etc – is conservatism updated to the era of mass politics. Why? I repeat, because it offers a neat method of justifying the status quo.
You are referencing the same events, in a manner that may be fairly be called far more casual than mine. The H. card is indeed heavy-handed, but I did not play it first.
I grant that not all nationalisms are created equal. Status quo ante is where they usually bend though. Earlier I made a non-casual reference to the authoritarian nationalist tyrants of the mid-20th century, which obviously included you-know-who. You seemed to defend him thereafter…no?
You may find my rhetoric and reasoning flawed or tricky or even off-the-rails–sometimes it is–but you are not observing the same conversational ethics you attempt to demand from me, at least not always. If so inclined, review some of the language and labels you used in response to me.
You are quite right that I get upset during some exchanges, especially when they contain perceived apologies for violence and brutal oppression. I should let it go or take a pause, at least more often, but I’m not good at restraining myself–I hope no one’s noticed–especially if the (seeming or actual) apology in question is collecting upvotes by the handful. This website has often been trainwreck-compelling and sickening to me of late. Other elements of it are quite worthwhile. I did not mean to wrongly attribute any views to you. And please don’t do that to me either.
I won’t pepper you with any more objections or moralizations for a good long while, perhaps forever. As two oft-disputatious chaps of different age and background, we might have a better time of it over a pint instead of online, but much of this present exchange has been overheated. I take plenty of responsibility for that fact. Take care, sir.
You are referencing the same events, in a manner that may be fairly be called far more casual than mine. The H. card is indeed heavy-handed, but I did not play it first.
I grant that not all nationalisms are created equal. Status quo ante is where they usually bend though. Earlier I made a non-casual reference to the authoritarian nationalist tyrants of the mid-20th century, which obviously included you-know-who. You seemed to defend him thereafter…no?
You may find my rhetoric and reasoning flawed or tricky or even off-the-rails–sometimes it is–but you are not observing the same conversational ethics you attempt to demand from me, at least not always. If so inclined, review some of the language and labels you used in response to me.
You are quite right that I get upset during some exchanges, especially when they contain perceived apologies for violence and brutal oppression. I should let it go or take a pause, at least more often, but I’m not good at restraining myself–I hope no one’s noticed–especially if the (seeming or actual) apology in question is collecting upvotes by the handful. This website has often been trainwreck-compelling and sickening to me of late. Other elements of it are quite worthwhile. I did not mean to wrongly attribute any views to you. And please don’t do that to me either.
I won’t pepper you with any more objections or moralizations for a good long while, perhaps forever. As two oft-disputatious chaps of different age and background, we might have a better time of it over a pint instead of online, but much of this present exchange has been overheated. I take plenty of responsibility for that fact. Take care, sir.
Never bring up exaggerated examples.Casual reference to the Holocaust should be off limits.
Leaving that aside, any political movement is tempted to violence and recourses to violence – so, yes, certain forms of repression are conservative and have conservative aims just as others are revolutionary and have revolutionary aims.
Realising this is not the same as condoning it in every setting.
Second, nationalism – which may or may not be violent depending on choices, circumstances etc – is conservatism updated to the era of mass politics. Why? I repeat, because it offers a neat method of justifying the status quo.
Nein.
*The notion that a true “conservative” joins an authoritarian nationalist purge, complete with mass-murder and book burnings, is as far away from a sensible use of the term conservative as calling the Bolsheviks “liberal”. The far-far left and far-far Right begin to mirror each other far more than they can usually admit at some point out on the far fringes.
In your zero-sum war games: Was the final solution itself somehow conservative?
Crown and altar politics are the well-spring of Western Conservatism. Burke and Smith and the Founding Fathers updated it for the democratic era. None of them believed a free nation could survive without Judeo-Christian values, a strong family, and deference to traditional ways of life.
And some thought a permanent underclass was needed too, enslaved or not. Your capitalized phrase Western Conservatism is quite inflated and off-target when it comes extreme authoritarian nationalism, and even less applicable to most of the Founding Fathers. In what way did they advocate crown and altar politics? Strong electoral Federalism and freedom of religion–and freedom from the puritanical tyranny of some Judeo-Christians–don’t fit with your claim as stated.
And some thought a permanent underclass was needed too, enslaved or not. Your capitalized phrase Western Conservatism is quite inflated and off-target when it comes extreme authoritarian nationalism, and even less applicable to most of the Founding Fathers. In what way did they advocate crown and altar politics? Strong electoral Federalism and freedom of religion–and freedom from the puritanical tyranny of some Judeo-Christians–don’t fit with your claim as stated.
Of course they were conservative and on every measure. Egalitarian or in favour of old hierarchies? The latter. Libertarian with regard to amorous conduct or deeply repressive? The latter. Keen on modernism, modern art and jazz or strictly classical and Victorian? The latter. On and on the list goes, adding up to the tightest, most straight laced corset of conservatism in the twentieth century – only the Irish Republic competed with them and that was all but a dictatorship under De Valera. Nationalism, moreover, is nothing but Conservatism updated for the era of mass politics, for instead of justifying existing institutions as the results of Divine Providence it does so as the expressions of the historic will of the people – ethnically defined: not a demos but an ethnos. This fitted hand in glove with clerical and traditional authorities because it gave a raft of new arguments to the diminishing power of religion.
Crown and altar politics are the well-spring of Western Conservatism. Burke and Smith and the Founding Fathers updated it for the democratic era. None of them believed a free nation could survive without Judeo-Christian values, a strong family, and deference to traditional ways of life.
Precisely. Yet that is what many a weak and cynical soi-disant “conservative” is up to in the west.
You are using “conservative” and “reactionary nationalism” as close synonyms. That is wrong. The mid-20th century right-wing autocrats were no more conservative than the left-wing dictators of the same period were “liberal”.
Spot on. Rationality doesn’t come into it.
That’s just wrong. Franco led a conservative revolution in Spain. Napoleon led a conservative revolution in France. Call it counter-revolution if you want. If the radicals have enacted a revolution, you need vast, rapid change to put things back where they should be.
The idea that if a Marxist state has been imposed on your country, conservatives should act to preserve it is simply bonkers.
Spot on. Rationality doesn’t come into it.
No he isn’t. A conservative proceeds cautiously and avoid sudden changes or wild polemics. A conservative revolution is a contradiction in terms. The snag is that it’s very difficult to engage in a circus of ideas with idiots, without becoming de facto similarly idiotic in the process. Remember, the woke brigade are essentially secular ideologists. They have more of the characteristics of blood guilt cults than of rational political movements. Very difficult to engage rationally with any of them.
Surely the opposite is true. Those who just sit there are either unpolitical or weakly liberal. Those who push back are consciously conserving. At most they are just restoring that which once obtained.
In this way, Louis XVIII was far more intensely “Conservative” than Louis XVI.
I’m not for just sitting there. I’m equally not for waging war with our children and grandchildren. I’m also dubious about the merits of using the progressive left’s own playbook to fight and win such a war.
Well, I sympathise on every level. You make an important and often overlooked point that one’s choice of weapon is not easily separable from the sort of war one wishes to wage. Nevertheless, I offer the Counter-Reformation as an extremely important example for our present day concerns. Faced with the protestant use of plays, print, propaganda and subversion, the Church went in for the same thing, with the added glories of imagistic architecture, which the protestants had largely foresworn. They also used music, which more or less obliged the protestants to bring it back! Result, a subtly recast Catholicism which was less instinctual and localised than its medieval predecessor and perhaps with less in the way of easy going charm, but nevertheless victorious in several chunks of Europe. This, I submit, is what it will take to recover any portion of the west. Yes, we don’t want to war with our younger brethren – but we should at least stand our ground in confrontations, if these should at any time erupt. And finally, by doing so, might we not be liberating them from the “mind-forged manacles” of Marxism?
And yet without the invention of the printing press and vernacular bibles the reformation would perhaps never have occured. The spirit that animated the founders of the US was the very same spirit that the counter reformation sought to squash.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc – but it’s a fallacy. History can’t be run twice – at least not for the benefit of human historians – so we don’t know whether or not enlightenment and scientific revolution would have arisen without the Reformation. They are at least as much the offspring of the Renaissance as the religious upheaval and perhaps they would have started sooner had Luther and his fellow fanatics not grown hot under the cassock about trifles.
Perhaps if Vespasian had listened to Hero of Alexandria we might have got there sooner, and with little or NO help from the Nazarenes & Co.
What an interesting point – could you expand on it a little? What did Hero of Alexandria say or offer to Vespasian? As to the broader and fascinating question – why did the ancient world not produce some sort of industrial revolution – I believe that some scholars have suggested it was on the point of doing so before collapse ensued. On religion, I can’t help feeling that in some ways it operates at a different level from economic and scientific enquiry, so that whatever the dominant denominational belief, it is possible for ordinary life to thrive so long as the priests are under control. This, I know, is probably a very Anglo-Victorian point of view…
In short Hero offered Vespasian the ‘Industrial Revolution’ but Vespasian declined, saying that it would cause unnecessary unemployment for the urban masses.
All this off course in the first century AD, and NOTHING to do with slavery!
Perhaps the other reason the Industrial Revolution failed to take off in the Classical World was there was just no real necessity for it at the time. The Pax Romana was about as good as it gets for most.
Fast forward sixteen hundred years, (circa 1712) to the Wheel Vor mine in Cornwall and Mr Newcomen and there definitely was necessity, likewise a little later ‘up north’ with Bridgewater, Brindley & Co and many others too numerous to mention.
Priests and for that matter Monks, Canons, Friars and Nuns used to be kept under “control” by powerful Bishops, Abbotts, Priors, Wardens and Abbesses, but sadly no longer.
Thank you very much indeed for the explanation. And I can well imagine that the prosperous peace of the Antonine world would not conduce to an interest in machinery!
I quite agree about priests etc needing to be controlled by bishops, although the latter would need to have charisma and authority, qualities I’m afraid I cannot discern in Justin Welby.
Thank you very much indeed for the explanation. And I can well imagine that the prosperous peace of the Antonine world would not conduce to an interest in machinery!
I quite agree about priests etc needing to be controlled by bishops, although the latter would need to have charisma and authority, qualities I’m afraid I cannot discern in Justin Welby.
In short Hero offered Vespasian the ‘Industrial Revolution’ but Vespasian declined, saying that it would cause unnecessary unemployment for the urban masses.
All this off course in the first century AD, and NOTHING to do with slavery!
Perhaps the other reason the Industrial Revolution failed to take off in the Classical World was there was just no real necessity for it at the time. The Pax Romana was about as good as it gets for most.
Fast forward sixteen hundred years, (circa 1712) to the Wheel Vor mine in Cornwall and Mr Newcomen and there definitely was necessity, likewise a little later ‘up north’ with Bridgewater, Brindley & Co and many others too numerous to mention.
Priests and for that matter Monks, Canons, Friars and Nuns used to be kept under “control” by powerful Bishops, Abbotts, Priors, Wardens and Abbesses, but sadly no longer.
What an interesting point – could you expand on it a little? What did Hero of Alexandria say or offer to Vespasian? As to the broader and fascinating question – why did the ancient world not produce some sort of industrial revolution – I believe that some scholars have suggested it was on the point of doing so before collapse ensued. On religion, I can’t help feeling that in some ways it operates at a different level from economic and scientific enquiry, so that whatever the dominant denominational belief, it is possible for ordinary life to thrive so long as the priests are under control. This, I know, is probably a very Anglo-Victorian point of view…
Perhaps if Vespasian had listened to Hero of Alexandria we might have got there sooner, and with little or NO help from the Nazarenes & Co.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc – but it’s a fallacy. History can’t be run twice – at least not for the benefit of human historians – so we don’t know whether or not enlightenment and scientific revolution would have arisen without the Reformation. They are at least as much the offspring of the Renaissance as the religious upheaval and perhaps they would have started sooner had Luther and his fellow fanatics not grown hot under the cassock about trifles.
Yes agreed we should stand our ground. As to liberating younger generations or even convincing them to give us a hearing, suspect the schism is too wide to easily bridge at the moment, because their antecedents are driven by the technologies they have lived under to a much greater extent than us. I suspect most of them will not believe what we have to say.
Very possibly. And those technologies not only herd them in the sense of dividing them from us; they enable them to “swarm” together. Which is one argument for disabling those technologies, of course.
Very possibly. And those technologies not only herd them in the sense of dividing them from us; they enable them to “swarm” together. Which is one argument for disabling those technologies, of course.
And yet without the invention of the printing press and vernacular bibles the reformation would perhaps never have occured. The spirit that animated the founders of the US was the very same spirit that the counter reformation sought to squash.
Yes agreed we should stand our ground. As to liberating younger generations or even convincing them to give us a hearing, suspect the schism is too wide to easily bridge at the moment, because their antecedents are driven by the technologies they have lived under to a much greater extent than us. I suspect most of them will not believe what we have to say.
Well, I sympathise on every level. You make an important and often overlooked point that one’s choice of weapon is not easily separable from the sort of war one wishes to wage. Nevertheless, I offer the Counter-Reformation as an extremely important example for our present day concerns. Faced with the protestant use of plays, print, propaganda and subversion, the Church went in for the same thing, with the added glories of imagistic architecture, which the protestants had largely foresworn. They also used music, which more or less obliged the protestants to bring it back! Result, a subtly recast Catholicism which was less instinctual and localised than its medieval predecessor and perhaps with less in the way of easy going charm, but nevertheless victorious in several chunks of Europe. This, I submit, is what it will take to recover any portion of the west. Yes, we don’t want to war with our younger brethren – but we should at least stand our ground in confrontations, if these should at any time erupt. And finally, by doing so, might we not be liberating them from the “mind-forged manacles” of Marxism?
I’m not for just sitting there. I’m equally not for waging war with our children and grandchildren. I’m also dubious about the merits of using the progressive left’s own playbook to fight and win such a war.
What Rufo is proposing shouldn’t really be described as conservative. Equality before the law, for example, is not an exclusively conservative value.
Equality is becoming an exclusively right wing ideal because the left are moving to “equity”, inequality based on membership of one or more (ever growing) identity groups.
The Left can move to ‘equity’ all they want but there’s a fascinating thing they are choosing to ignore which will hit them in the butt eventually = human nature.
True. But our modern societies have proven to be horribly adept at subverting core values and common nature. Witness the C20th horrors of Nazism, Communism. It proved all to easy to make men butcher over a million women & children over forest pit or starve a people to death in Ukraine. Right now – almoslt in the last year – the anti discriminatory phobia/mind virus that is warping our minds saw everyone from Rishi to the BBC denounce with hostility the notion of tax cuts to support enterprise or encourage the Rich. Incredible!!! Taxation can only serve Brownite redistribution to the so called Poor. This progressive virus is now rampant. Human Nature is not resisting.
Yes, but how many millions will die before sanity returns?
True. But our modern societies have proven to be horribly adept at subverting core values and common nature. Witness the C20th horrors of Nazism, Communism. It proved all to easy to make men butcher over a million women & children over forest pit or starve a people to death in Ukraine. Right now – almoslt in the last year – the anti discriminatory phobia/mind virus that is warping our minds saw everyone from Rishi to the BBC denounce with hostility the notion of tax cuts to support enterprise or encourage the Rich. Incredible!!! Taxation can only serve Brownite redistribution to the so called Poor. This progressive virus is now rampant. Human Nature is not resisting.
Yes, but how many millions will die before sanity returns?
The Left can move to ‘equity’ all they want but there’s a fascinating thing they are choosing to ignore which will hit them in the butt eventually = human nature.
His main thesis isn’t conservative at all, but a form of reactionary, self-admittedly-radical populism.
Love your neighbor and the stranger–and your enemies (the most profound challenge of all). Be as wise as serpents but as meek as doves. Those aren’t Populist, Conservative, Liberal, or Progressive values, but they are shared–or at least professed–by many across the sociopolitical spectrum.
Interesting how those words can be trotted out to support any political platform. I’m wary of anyone who puts them on a billboard for any reason. It’s a back-pocket judo move for secularists who seem to deny the power behind it.
Can be. They are also words of enduring, elevating power and I don’t find that those particular sayings of Jesus and the Prophets are “trotted out” very often, especially “love thine enemy, and pray for those who despitefully use you”–do you?
*Or do you think the power is an otherworldly one, not a lesson in how to act in this life?
If you divorce these words from the supernatural source they are empty, and can be used as a tool to guilt Christians into accepting all manner of cultural rot. Who do you believe said this? A smart man who said smart things to be used to support the latest social trends of the left? Or perhaps their divine origin is rooted in something else entirely, If you are a Believer, like myself, we both hope for the culmination of these concepts, as failed humanity will never achieve these words without help. If you’re an all for one and one for all kinda’ guy, I’m tired. It’s hot, and you need not waste your wisdom on an old guy like me. Better hunting.
Hi Kerry – I am a big perspective believer – ie “there is more going on here Horatio” – and do believe there is existence of a kind post death. I very much believe that ALL of humanities’ woes are the result of a very low level of spirituality per se – a total arrogance and narcissism pervading the planet. It seems we live in primitive times and as Teilhard de Chardin pointed out it may take many centuries and countless wars before humanity evolves to a point where LOVE ie wanting the best for ALL becomes dominant .. Twill look like the contemporary slow train crash for many years to come but at least you and I will a have a bigger perspective to allow a small measure of comfort whilst watching it……
If you don’t realize that some people honor Jesus with their lips while their hearts are far from him and that not everyone that calls out to him “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, you betray and cheapen his message. Jesus was not a Christian and his prayer began “Our Father” not “dear me”.
A Believer who capitalizes his faith but eschews love and forgiveness toward all and charity and the hope of peace on Earth is a believer in something other than the teachings of Jesus. I’m extremely tired of hellfire, self-proclaimed Christians who reject the generosity, forgiveness, and kindness in the source texts.
Hi Kerry – I am a big perspective believer – ie “there is more going on here Horatio” – and do believe there is existence of a kind post death. I very much believe that ALL of humanities’ woes are the result of a very low level of spirituality per se – a total arrogance and narcissism pervading the planet. It seems we live in primitive times and as Teilhard de Chardin pointed out it may take many centuries and countless wars before humanity evolves to a point where LOVE ie wanting the best for ALL becomes dominant .. Twill look like the contemporary slow train crash for many years to come but at least you and I will a have a bigger perspective to allow a small measure of comfort whilst watching it……
If you don’t realize that some people honor Jesus with their lips while their hearts are far from him and that not everyone that calls out to him “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, you betray and cheapen his message. Jesus was not a Christian and his prayer began “Our Father” not “dear me”.
A Believer who capitalizes his faith but eschews love and forgiveness toward all and charity and the hope of peace on Earth is a believer in something other than the teachings of Jesus. I’m extremely tired of hellfire, self-proclaimed Christians who reject the generosity, forgiveness, and kindness in the source texts.
If you divorce these words from the supernatural source they are empty, and can be used as a tool to guilt Christians into accepting all manner of cultural rot. Who do you believe said this? A smart man who said smart things to be used to support the latest social trends of the left? Or perhaps their divine origin is rooted in something else entirely, If you are a Believer, like myself, we both hope for the culmination of these concepts, as failed humanity will never achieve these words without help. If you’re an all for one and one for all kinda’ guy, I’m tired. It’s hot, and you need not waste your wisdom on an old guy like me. Better hunting.
Can be. They are also words of enduring, elevating power and I don’t find that those particular sayings of Jesus and the Prophets are “trotted out” very often, especially “love thine enemy, and pray for those who despitefully use you”–do you?
*Or do you think the power is an otherworldly one, not a lesson in how to act in this life?
Interesting how those words can be trotted out to support any political platform. I’m wary of anyone who puts them on a billboard for any reason. It’s a back-pocket judo move for secularists who seem to deny the power behind it.
Equality is becoming an exclusively right wing ideal because the left are moving to “equity”, inequality based on membership of one or more (ever growing) identity groups.
His main thesis isn’t conservative at all, but a form of reactionary, self-admittedly-radical populism.
Love your neighbor and the stranger–and your enemies (the most profound challenge of all). Be as wise as serpents but as meek as doves. Those aren’t Populist, Conservative, Liberal, or Progressive values, but they are shared–or at least professed–by many across the sociopolitical spectrum.
Retracing the steps a society has taken once it is clear they have led us down a cul-de-sac to get us back pointing in the right direction is inherently conservative.
Very true – and there are several “Restorations” in European history which partially prove the point: 1660, 1815, 1989 and so on. You could add the almost complete success of Mary Tudor’s Catholic restoration, which was only undone in 1558 because she died without a co-religionist heir – and this was the result of a foreign policy which put Spanish interests before those of international Catholicism. Had she been able to see past these dynastic and political loyalties, she would have left the throne to the legitimate Mary Stuart, rather than to the b*****d, Elizabeth.
However, there are ways in which “Restoration” is inevitably limited. The past, once gone, can never be resurrected in its entirety. Marian Catholicism was not quite the same as its medieval predecessor – few monasteries, for one thing. And any new foundations, had the Queen lived as long as her half-sister, would have been housed not in gothic but in Renaissance buildings, of lesser magnificence and – of course – antiquity. So the atmosphere, the majesty, the pageant of that medieval civilisation was gone for good.
In the same way, ancien regime France was irrecoverable in much of its charm and panache. All this is to say that time’s arrow, whilst certainly not progressive and not aimed at “Utopia”, is nevertheless beyond contradiction in many important respects. But in practical matters – yes, a thousand times yes, we should be allowed to retreat, retract, retrace our steps and return to the right road.
“The almost complete success” of Bloody Mary…haha! Too bad about her total failure, both from a moral and political point of view. Her viciousness was an outlier even in her violent, zealous times. John Calvin’s mirror image.
Anachronistic moralism worthy of the woke-est whippersnapper. Elizabeth the First disembowelled over two hundred priests, put down a northern rebellion very bloodily and imposed a religious settlement wholly alien to the English people of that day. Are you going to say “Priests were traitors” – implicitly justifying butchering people to death? Or are you going to come over all Protestant-bigot and say that the imposition of that particular religion is fine, just fine? If not, then you haven’t got a leg to stand on and your remarks are no more than a provincial, supercilious whinge.
Arch-conservative (or maybe contrarian-nostalgic) ruthlessness worthy of the the most aged gargoyle. Of course Elizabeth had her ruthless streak, just like her father and sister, but Bloody Mary would have racked up a far higher body count if she’d lasted anywhere near as long as Elizabeth R., who was among the greatest women of all time–though largely in the amoral sense that Alexander of Macedonia was “great”. Bloody Mary made an already unstable society worse; Elizabeth did the opposite, generally speaking.
Total nonsense – speculation arising from ignorance and prejudice. How do you know what Mary “would” have done? And how could Mary have made a largely Catholic country “less stable” by allowing it the Catholicism it craved? Having cut the small Protestant cancer out of the body politic, she could have relaxed into centuries of conservative, Catholic peace. It was Elizabeth who, by persisting in the bloody imposition of Protestantism, divided Britain – especially Ireland – between an authoritarian new elite and the bulk of the people – hence the Civil War a few decades later. And by what moral legerdemain do you conjure away Elizabeth’s actions (which must – by the absolute moral stance you take up with regard Mary – be seen as appalling crimes), as merely evidence of a “ruthless streak”? Talk about “double standards”! One rule for Mary, another for Elizabeth. As I say, it smacks of “woke” – perfectly analogous to their use of one rule for “minorities” and another for ethnic Europeans. As for your parrot cry derived from some Whig text book that Elizabeth was “among the greatest women” etcetera, it is unworthy of discussion. Why not do some reading on this matter before pontificating, hmm?
I don’t know and neither do you. But what would have made an angry zealot like Mary stop persecuting people over religion–hmm?. (Again, persecuting them worse than her replacement). When your pronouncements have holes poked in them you resort to flailing abuse. Sometimes I get that way too. But I try not to.
Though I’m not British I have an MA in English Lit, with considerable specific knowledge of the Elizabethan Age, for a “provincial” at least. How many among your own countrymen would disagree with me? Or should all their opinions be ascribed to ignorance and prejudice too, if not “murmurings from the (former) colonies”?
What leads you to assume that your own self-certain pontifications have some special value? Perhaps you are a very-sectarian English Catholic still upset over something that occurred centuries before your birth, which nevertheless only you and a few likeminded people of today quite understand, according to your ever-so-comprehensive and openminded reading.
*Incidentally three-quarters of my grandparents were Catholic–including the dearest and longest-lived–and I don’t harbor anti-Catholic prejudice. And sorry if I’ve wrongly attributed your vehemence to hardline Catholic loyalty.
Good – you admit you don’t know what Mary would have done. That’s a first step. Now try to answer the central points: one – how does restoring official Catholicism to a Catholic nation bring “instability”? It is surely the imposition of Protestantism on that country which destabilises it. Two, how can you – especially a graduate – fail to see that you are using moral double standards with regard to Mary and Elizabeth? Three, why be moralistic about it in the first place? Answer those fairly, and I shall understand. Persist in mere assertion and the conversation is closed.
It’s true I like Elizabeth better, by far. Mary seems a like a humorless shrew to me, a very vengeful one at that. Admittedly, I didn’t know her well. How do you assess her personality and actions again? The upheaval of Henry’s biggest divorce–from the Catholic Church–was plenty to weather within a couple generations. A restoration is rather more dreamt of than achievable without too much bloodshed. (Weren’t the consequences quite horrific on the Continent?).
Not that you’d consider this fair play either, but I don’t much care for Luther either, and especially Calvin (“stop the presses, an opinionated North American has spoken!”). I like Erasmus, for the un-kept record. I detest zealots of every stripe, and Elizabeth was not a zealot, I don’t believe. England was strengthened and ascendant as a national power and budding empire during and after her reign, something I regard as a net-positive for the West.
I took a grad class once with a bunch of readings from the 16th century, both celebrating and denouncing Elizabeth, on both sides quite extreme. A few of your remarks remind me of the latter, though not to a John Knox kind of level (“succubus, prostitute”, etc.). Granted, I have expressed a rather simple, emphatic denouncement of Mary Tudor. I’d be willing to learn more and consider a more balanced or moderate view of her, but not by angry command.
Thank you for a considerate and interesting reply. As I have said to another contributor to these threads, I can be a little too pointed and peppery at times and I am sincerely sorry if I have hurt your feelings. Since we’re in the business of confessions, I will own to a deep sorrow over the Reformation and not because I am a Catholic – I am in fact an Anglican. No, it’s because I mourn for the loss and destruction of any great works of art and architecture. I feel it acutely. For the same reason I deplore the way in which so many great works from the ancient world were lost when they might have been preserved in museums – quite a few in fact were – but sadly even these were lost when Islam finally took Constantinople. All the best…
I respect that point about cultural legacy. In that respect I have strong, small-c conservative or “preservationist” leanings myself. I’m glad to leave it there, with no hard feelings. All the best to you as well.
I respect that point about cultural legacy. In that respect I have strong, small-c conservative or “preservationist” leanings myself. I’m glad to leave it there, with no hard feelings. All the best to you as well.
Thank you for a considerate and interesting reply. As I have said to another contributor to these threads, I can be a little too pointed and peppery at times and I am sincerely sorry if I have hurt your feelings. Since we’re in the business of confessions, I will own to a deep sorrow over the Reformation and not because I am a Catholic – I am in fact an Anglican. No, it’s because I mourn for the loss and destruction of any great works of art and architecture. I feel it acutely. For the same reason I deplore the way in which so many great works from the ancient world were lost when they might have been preserved in museums – quite a few in fact were – but sadly even these were lost when Islam finally took Constantinople. All the best…
It’s true I like Elizabeth better, by far. Mary seems a like a humorless shrew to me, a very vengeful one at that. Admittedly, I didn’t know her well. How do you assess her personality and actions again? The upheaval of Henry’s biggest divorce–from the Catholic Church–was plenty to weather within a couple generations. A restoration is rather more dreamt of than achievable without too much bloodshed. (Weren’t the consequences quite horrific on the Continent?).
Not that you’d consider this fair play either, but I don’t much care for Luther either, and especially Calvin (“stop the presses, an opinionated North American has spoken!”). I like Erasmus, for the un-kept record. I detest zealots of every stripe, and Elizabeth was not a zealot, I don’t believe. England was strengthened and ascendant as a national power and budding empire during and after her reign, something I regard as a net-positive for the West.
I took a grad class once with a bunch of readings from the 16th century, both celebrating and denouncing Elizabeth, on both sides quite extreme. A few of your remarks remind me of the latter, though not to a John Knox kind of level (“succubus, prostitute”, etc.). Granted, I have expressed a rather simple, emphatic denouncement of Mary Tudor. I’d be willing to learn more and consider a more balanced or moderate view of her, but not by angry command.
Have you by any chance read ‘The ‘The voices of Morebath’ by Eamon Duffy (Cantab)?
If not may I recommend it?
An excellent book. Reformation scholarship in England has been extraordinarily rich in recent years, has it not? Peter Marshall’s “Heretics and Believers” is a magnificent account.
Yes indeed, and not before time it must be said.
We have liked in the the shadow of Foxe’s Martyrs and the like. for far too long.
Yes indeed, and not before time it must be said.
We have liked in the the shadow of Foxe’s Martyrs and the like. for far too long.
You may. I’ll check it out.
An excellent book. Reformation scholarship in England has been extraordinarily rich in recent years, has it not? Peter Marshall’s “Heretics and Believers” is a magnificent account.
You may. I’ll check it out.
Good – you admit you don’t know what Mary would have done. That’s a first step. Now try to answer the central points: one – how does restoring official Catholicism to a Catholic nation bring “instability”? It is surely the imposition of Protestantism on that country which destabilises it. Two, how can you – especially a graduate – fail to see that you are using moral double standards with regard to Mary and Elizabeth? Three, why be moralistic about it in the first place? Answer those fairly, and I shall understand. Persist in mere assertion and the conversation is closed.
Have you by any chance read ‘The ‘The voices of Morebath’ by Eamon Duffy (Cantab)?
If not may I recommend it?
I don’t know and neither do you. But what would have made an angry zealot like Mary stop persecuting people over religion–hmm?. (Again, persecuting them worse than her replacement). When your pronouncements have holes poked in them you resort to flailing abuse. Sometimes I get that way too. But I try not to.
Though I’m not British I have an MA in English Lit, with considerable specific knowledge of the Elizabethan Age, for a “provincial” at least. How many among your own countrymen would disagree with me? Or should all their opinions be ascribed to ignorance and prejudice too, if not “murmurings from the (former) colonies”?
What leads you to assume that your own self-certain pontifications have some special value? Perhaps you are a very-sectarian English Catholic still upset over something that occurred centuries before your birth, which nevertheless only you and a few likeminded people of today quite understand, according to your ever-so-comprehensive and openminded reading.
*Incidentally three-quarters of my grandparents were Catholic–including the dearest and longest-lived–and I don’t harbor anti-Catholic prejudice. And sorry if I’ve wrongly attributed your vehemence to hardline Catholic loyalty.
Really? I thought ‘Blackadder’ had her about right.
Yikes! Quite an sneering portrayal. But Rowan Atkinson & company were equal opportunity lampooners at least.
As I recall a vacuous air-head ‘controlled’/‘manipulated’ by Burghley, Walsingham & Co.
Hideous makeup and teeth too, perhaps “period-accurate” enough.
Hideous makeup and teeth too, perhaps “period-accurate” enough.
As I recall a vacuous air-head ‘controlled’/‘manipulated’ by Burghley, Walsingham & Co.
Yikes! Quite an sneering portrayal. But Rowan Atkinson & company were equal opportunity lampooners at least.
Total nonsense – speculation arising from ignorance and prejudice. How do you know what Mary “would” have done? And how could Mary have made a largely Catholic country “less stable” by allowing it the Catholicism it craved? Having cut the small Protestant cancer out of the body politic, she could have relaxed into centuries of conservative, Catholic peace. It was Elizabeth who, by persisting in the bloody imposition of Protestantism, divided Britain – especially Ireland – between an authoritarian new elite and the bulk of the people – hence the Civil War a few decades later. And by what moral legerdemain do you conjure away Elizabeth’s actions (which must – by the absolute moral stance you take up with regard Mary – be seen as appalling crimes), as merely evidence of a “ruthless streak”? Talk about “double standards”! One rule for Mary, another for Elizabeth. As I say, it smacks of “woke” – perfectly analogous to their use of one rule for “minorities” and another for ethnic Europeans. As for your parrot cry derived from some Whig text book that Elizabeth was “among the greatest women” etcetera, it is unworthy of discussion. Why not do some reading on this matter before pontificating, hmm?
Really? I thought ‘Blackadder’ had her about right.
Arch-conservative (or maybe contrarian-nostalgic) ruthlessness worthy of the the most aged gargoyle. Of course Elizabeth had her ruthless streak, just like her father and sister, but Bloody Mary would have racked up a far higher body count if she’d lasted anywhere near as long as Elizabeth R., who was among the greatest women of all time–though largely in the amoral sense that Alexander of Macedonia was “great”. Bloody Mary made an already unstable society worse; Elizabeth did the opposite, generally speaking.
Anachronistic moralism worthy of the woke-est whippersnapper. Elizabeth the First disembowelled over two hundred priests, put down a northern rebellion very bloodily and imposed a religious settlement wholly alien to the English people of that day. Are you going to say “Priests were traitors” – implicitly justifying butchering people to death? Or are you going to come over all Protestant-bigot and say that the imposition of that particular religion is fine, just fine? If not, then you haven’t got a leg to stand on and your remarks are no more than a provincial, supercilious whinge.
Architecturally the Reformation did paradoxically preserved some of the greatest monuments of the English Gothic.
Had we remained Catholic most our great fanes would have been given a Baroque or Rococo ‘make over’, and thus resemble the great fanes of Catholic Germany, Austria, Poland and the Czech Republic, which would have been unfortunate to say the very least.
“The almost complete success” of Bloody Mary…haha! Too bad about her total failure, both from a moral and political point of view. Her viciousness was an outlier even in her violent, zealous times. John Calvin’s mirror image.
Architecturally the Reformation did paradoxically preserved some of the greatest monuments of the English Gothic.
Had we remained Catholic most our great fanes would have been given a Baroque or Rococo ‘make over’, and thus resemble the great fanes of Catholic Germany, Austria, Poland and the Czech Republic, which would have been unfortunate to say the very least.
That’s fair enough. I’m just saying if it’s in the larger context of a generational divide, it’s possibly counterproductive if older generations force a regression which younger generations don’t want. I mean, they may be wrong (and I think they are) but us older generations forcing the issue will come with costs.
To a point, yes. But “conservative destruction” of the extreme sort now in vogue on the Right makes about as much sense as the “compassionate condemnations” of the Left, which are often justly reviled here, if with disproportionate focus. It only makes sense in the wrongheaded, God-playing sense of killing someone to save their soul.
Very true – and there are several “Restorations” in European history which partially prove the point: 1660, 1815, 1989 and so on. You could add the almost complete success of Mary Tudor’s Catholic restoration, which was only undone in 1558 because she died without a co-religionist heir – and this was the result of a foreign policy which put Spanish interests before those of international Catholicism. Had she been able to see past these dynastic and political loyalties, she would have left the throne to the legitimate Mary Stuart, rather than to the b*****d, Elizabeth.
However, there are ways in which “Restoration” is inevitably limited. The past, once gone, can never be resurrected in its entirety. Marian Catholicism was not quite the same as its medieval predecessor – few monasteries, for one thing. And any new foundations, had the Queen lived as long as her half-sister, would have been housed not in gothic but in Renaissance buildings, of lesser magnificence and – of course – antiquity. So the atmosphere, the majesty, the pageant of that medieval civilisation was gone for good.
In the same way, ancien regime France was irrecoverable in much of its charm and panache. All this is to say that time’s arrow, whilst certainly not progressive and not aimed at “Utopia”, is nevertheless beyond contradiction in many important respects. But in practical matters – yes, a thousand times yes, we should be allowed to retreat, retract, retrace our steps and return to the right road.
That’s fair enough. I’m just saying if it’s in the larger context of a generational divide, it’s possibly counterproductive if older generations force a regression which younger generations don’t want. I mean, they may be wrong (and I think they are) but us older generations forcing the issue will come with costs.
To a point, yes. But “conservative destruction” of the extreme sort now in vogue on the Right makes about as much sense as the “compassionate condemnations” of the Left, which are often justly reviled here, if with disproportionate focus. It only makes sense in the wrongheaded, God-playing sense of killing someone to save their soul.
Conservatives ARE the ‘new revolutionaries’ now….
In the face of rapid and radical change for the worse, I think it’s conservative to want to put things back where they used to work better. The rule of law, relatively free market capitalism, and government by the consent of the governed used to be a winning combination. We know from history that dictatorships of self identified “experts” fail in comparison, no matter how much they tell us they are making changes for our own good.
You are making the classic leftist error of equating conservative with ‘reactionary’.
Surely the opposite is true. Those who just sit there are either unpolitical or weakly liberal. Those who push back are consciously conserving. At most they are just restoring that which once obtained.
In this way, Louis XVIII was far more intensely “Conservative” than Louis XVI.
What Rufo is proposing shouldn’t really be described as conservative. Equality before the law, for example, is not an exclusively conservative value.
Retracing the steps a society has taken once it is clear they have led us down a cul-de-sac to get us back pointing in the right direction is inherently conservative.
Conservatives ARE the ‘new revolutionaries’ now….
In the face of rapid and radical change for the worse, I think it’s conservative to want to put things back where they used to work better. The rule of law, relatively free market capitalism, and government by the consent of the governed used to be a winning combination. We know from history that dictatorships of self identified “experts” fail in comparison, no matter how much they tell us they are making changes for our own good.
A conservative who is a revolutionary, is then no longer a conservative. The type of pushback Rufo is advocating is fine (and perhaps even necessary, although personally I’m dubious on this), in that like everything it comes with benefits and costs. But no one should pretend it’s conservative.