Attn: eumaas

Politics and other such topical creams.
eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 22595
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: Carrboro/Alamut

Re: Attn: eumaas

Post by eumaas » 25 Mar 2016, 9:38am

Dr. Medulla wrote:You ever read or come across this? https://mises.org/library/menace-herd-o ... stes-large

I'm reading George Nash's history of postwar conservative intellectuals and he discusses von Kuehnelt-Leddihn a bit. The thing that struck me was that he describes von Kuehnelt-Leddihn as arguing totalitarianism springs from the Enlightenment (modernism) and the French Revolution, not some kind of perversion of democracy. Which is what Adorno and Horkheimer argued in Dialectic of Enlightenment. Just one of those neat and not-infrequent moments (occurring within a few years of each other, too) where a firm monarchist and radical leftist reach a common and harsh conclusion about something in the centre.
Yes! I've read him. I even put a character based on him in a short story--Austrian Catholic monarchist hanging out with conservatives and libertarians is just too weird not to use.
"The only thing that really occurs to me that I can say on this is to point out how fascinating it is that the Hassan-i-Sabbah archetype keeps turning up over and over again ... He disappears up into the mountains and is never seen again. Believe me, he'll never be seen again. He'll live forever because of that."

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 71084
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: Attn: eumaas

Post by Dr. Medulla » 25 Mar 2016, 9:43am

eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:You ever read or come across this? https://mises.org/library/menace-herd-o ... stes-large

I'm reading George Nash's history of postwar conservative intellectuals and he discusses von Kuehnelt-Leddihn a bit. The thing that struck me was that he describes von Kuehnelt-Leddihn as arguing totalitarianism springs from the Enlightenment (modernism) and the French Revolution, not some kind of perversion of democracy. Which is what Adorno and Horkheimer argued in Dialectic of Enlightenment. Just one of those neat and not-infrequent moments (occurring within a few years of each other, too) where a firm monarchist and radical leftist reach a common and harsh conclusion about something in the centre.
Yes! I've read him. I even put a character based on him in a short story--Austrian Catholic monarchist hanging out with conservatives and libertarians is just too weird not to use.
Heh heh. Strange bedfellows all around.
Walrus birth doesn't make good breakfast conversation!

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 71084
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: Attn: eumaas

Post by Dr. Medulla » 07 Apr 2016, 2:13pm

I think I've asked you this before, but have you ever read José Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses (1932)? I'm typing in my notes for it right now, and it's striking how much contemporary liberals have absorbed from this conservative Spanish philosopher. The average person is too dumb, too given to gut thinking, too happy to embrace unreason to be allowed to participate in the public sphere. The natural order of things is a meritocracy, with the talented minority ensuring civilization prospers—on behalf of the lazy masses, no less. The problem is that the masses believe that their desire to be influential is sufficient to merit influence, and because of this civilization is in danger of being overrun by these barbarians. Doesn't this sound like the usual description of conservatives? Isn't it the essence of Idiocracy? I won't deny that I have certain snarling moments of agreement, but it's fascinating that this guy was a key mid-century conservative philosopher reacting against Communism and Fascism alike.
Walrus birth doesn't make good breakfast conversation!

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 22595
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: Carrboro/Alamut

Re: Attn: eumaas

Post by eumaas » 07 Apr 2016, 4:20pm

Dr. Medulla wrote:I think I've asked you this before, but have you ever read José Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses (1932)? I'm typing in my notes for it right now, and it's striking how much contemporary liberals have absorbed from this conservative Spanish philosopher. The average person is too dumb, too given to gut thinking, too happy to embrace unreason to be allowed to participate in the public sphere. The natural order of things is a meritocracy, with the talented minority ensuring civilization prospers—on behalf of the lazy masses, no less. The problem is that the masses believe that their desire to be influential is sufficient to merit influence, and because of this civilization is in danger of being overrun by these barbarians. Doesn't this sound like the usual description of conservatives? Isn't it the essence of Idiocracy? I won't deny that I have certain snarling moments of agreement, but it's fascinating that this guy was a key mid-century conservative philosopher reacting against Communism and Fascism alike.
I have read it! Reminds me of some of Lawrence's work, actually. It was recommended to me by my Russianist friend.

When you read it like that, it certainly does sound like the kind of liberalism promoted by Clinton and Blair.
"The only thing that really occurs to me that I can say on this is to point out how fascinating it is that the Hassan-i-Sabbah archetype keeps turning up over and over again ... He disappears up into the mountains and is never seen again. Believe me, he'll never be seen again. He'll live forever because of that."

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 71084
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: Attn: eumaas

Post by Dr. Medulla » 07 Apr 2016, 4:30pm

eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:I think I've asked you this before, but have you ever read José Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses (1932)? I'm typing in my notes for it right now, and it's striking how much contemporary liberals have absorbed from this conservative Spanish philosopher. The average person is too dumb, too given to gut thinking, too happy to embrace unreason to be allowed to participate in the public sphere. The natural order of things is a meritocracy, with the talented minority ensuring civilization prospers—on behalf of the lazy masses, no less. The problem is that the masses believe that their desire to be influential is sufficient to merit influence, and because of this civilization is in danger of being overrun by these barbarians. Doesn't this sound like the usual description of conservatives? Isn't it the essence of Idiocracy? I won't deny that I have certain snarling moments of agreement, but it's fascinating that this guy was a key mid-century conservative philosopher reacting against Communism and Fascism alike.
I have read it! Reminds me of some of Lawrence's work, actually. It was recommended to me by my Russianist friend.

When you read it like that, it certainly does sound like the kind of liberalism promoted by Clinton and Blair.
The whole damn thing is fascinating to me how ideas, whole or in part, float across the spectrum. The example I like to cite is that in the 50s and 60, it was the left, originally continental intellectuals then later American hippies, who embraced a suspicion of science and rationality and promoted more gut thinking. It was the renascent conservative movement that bound itself to rigourous rationalism. Yet, somewhere in the 80s or 90s, the polarity of the spectrum reversed. Maybe this unanchored nature of ideas is just part and parcel of postmodernity, but that seems a bit simplistic to explain just crazy shifts.
Walrus birth doesn't make good breakfast conversation!

Wolter
User avatar
Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Woody Allen
Posts: 49225
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Contact:

Re: Attn: eumaas

Post by Wolter » 07 Apr 2016, 5:09pm

Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:I think I've asked you this before, but have you ever read José Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses (1932)? I'm typing in my notes for it right now, and it's striking how much contemporary liberals have absorbed from this conservative Spanish philosopher. The average person is too dumb, too given to gut thinking, too happy to embrace unreason to be allowed to participate in the public sphere. The natural order of things is a meritocracy, with the talented minority ensuring civilization prospers—on behalf of the lazy masses, no less. The problem is that the masses believe that their desire to be influential is sufficient to merit influence, and because of this civilization is in danger of being overrun by these barbarians. Doesn't this sound like the usual description of conservatives? Isn't it the essence of Idiocracy? I won't deny that I have certain snarling moments of agreement, but it's fascinating that this guy was a key mid-century conservative philosopher reacting against Communism and Fascism alike.
I have read it! Reminds me of some of Lawrence's work, actually. It was recommended to me by my Russianist friend.

When you read it like that, it certainly does sound like the kind of liberalism promoted by Clinton and Blair.
The whole damn thing is fascinating to me how ideas, whole or in part, float across the spectrum. The example I like to cite is that in the 50s and 60, it was the left, originally continental intellectuals then later American hippies, who embraced a suspicion of science and rationality and promoted more gut thinking. It was the renascent conservative movement that bound itself to rigourous rationalism. Yet, somewhere in the 80s or 90s, the polarity of the spectrum reversed. Maybe this unanchored nature of ideas is just part and parcel of postmodernity, but that seems a bit simplistic to explain just crazy shifts.
In the early 20th century, before the atrocities of the Nazis were documented, the biggest fans of eugenics were almost all well-known liberals, to expand on that idea.
"There's something more honest, he believed, about traditional methods of mass starvation, labour camps, and machine gunning millions to death. Stalin was a vinyl guy who sneered at Truman converting everything to compact disc." - Thomas Jefferson

"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 71084
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: Attn: eumaas

Post by Dr. Medulla » 07 Apr 2016, 5:20pm

Wolter wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:I think I've asked you this before, but have you ever read José Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses (1932)? I'm typing in my notes for it right now, and it's striking how much contemporary liberals have absorbed from this conservative Spanish philosopher. The average person is too dumb, too given to gut thinking, too happy to embrace unreason to be allowed to participate in the public sphere. The natural order of things is a meritocracy, with the talented minority ensuring civilization prospers—on behalf of the lazy masses, no less. The problem is that the masses believe that their desire to be influential is sufficient to merit influence, and because of this civilization is in danger of being overrun by these barbarians. Doesn't this sound like the usual description of conservatives? Isn't it the essence of Idiocracy? I won't deny that I have certain snarling moments of agreement, but it's fascinating that this guy was a key mid-century conservative philosopher reacting against Communism and Fascism alike.
I have read it! Reminds me of some of Lawrence's work, actually. It was recommended to me by my Russianist friend.

When you read it like that, it certainly does sound like the kind of liberalism promoted by Clinton and Blair.
The whole damn thing is fascinating to me how ideas, whole or in part, float across the spectrum. The example I like to cite is that in the 50s and 60, it was the left, originally continental intellectuals then later American hippies, who embraced a suspicion of science and rationality and promoted more gut thinking. It was the renascent conservative movement that bound itself to rigourous rationalism. Yet, somewhere in the 80s or 90s, the polarity of the spectrum reversed. Maybe this unanchored nature of ideas is just part and parcel of postmodernity, but that seems a bit simplistic to explain just crazy shifts.
In the early 20th century, before the atrocities of the Nazis were documented, the biggest fans of eugenics were almost all well-known liberals, to expand on that idea.
The definition of liberal or left gets a bit dicier back then, but, definitely, Progressives were ardent believers that science and technique could solve all society's ills, including the weak link of inferior breeding. I get seriously weirded out when students express admiration for the Progressives, when all I see is a bunch of bigots and monsters.
Walrus birth doesn't make good breakfast conversation!

Wolter
User avatar
Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Woody Allen
Posts: 49225
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Contact:

Re: Attn: eumaas

Post by Wolter » 07 Apr 2016, 7:27pm

Dr. Medulla wrote:
Wolter wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:I think I've asked you this before, but have you ever read José Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses (1932)? I'm typing in my notes for it right now, and it's striking how much contemporary liberals have absorbed from this conservative Spanish philosopher. The average person is too dumb, too given to gut thinking, too happy to embrace unreason to be allowed to participate in the public sphere. The natural order of things is a meritocracy, with the talented minority ensuring civilization prospers—on behalf of the lazy masses, no less. The problem is that the masses believe that their desire to be influential is sufficient to merit influence, and because of this civilization is in danger of being overrun by these barbarians. Doesn't this sound like the usual description of conservatives? Isn't it the essence of Idiocracy? I won't deny that I have certain snarling moments of agreement, but it's fascinating that this guy was a key mid-century conservative philosopher reacting against Communism and Fascism alike.
I have read it! Reminds me of some of Lawrence's work, actually. It was recommended to me by my Russianist friend.

When you read it like that, it certainly does sound like the kind of liberalism promoted by Clinton and Blair.
The whole damn thing is fascinating to me how ideas, whole or in part, float across the spectrum. The example I like to cite is that in the 50s and 60, it was the left, originally continental intellectuals then later American hippies, who embraced a suspicion of science and rationality and promoted more gut thinking. It was the renascent conservative movement that bound itself to rigourous rationalism. Yet, somewhere in the 80s or 90s, the polarity of the spectrum reversed. Maybe this unanchored nature of ideas is just part and parcel of postmodernity, but that seems a bit simplistic to explain just crazy shifts.
In the early 20th century, before the atrocities of the Nazis were documented, the biggest fans of eugenics were almost all well-known liberals, to expand on that idea.
The definition of liberal or left gets a bit dicier back then, but, definitely, Progressives were ardent believers that science and technique could solve all society's ills, including the weak link of inferior breeding. I get seriously weirded out when students express admiration for the Progressives, when all I see is a bunch of bigots and monsters.
Yeah, the Progressive movement is frankly chilling if you examine what their beliefs actually entailed.
"There's something more honest, he believed, about traditional methods of mass starvation, labour camps, and machine gunning millions to death. Stalin was a vinyl guy who sneered at Truman converting everything to compact disc." - Thomas Jefferson

"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 71084
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: Attn: eumaas

Post by Dr. Medulla » 07 Apr 2016, 7:42pm

Wolter wrote:Yeah, the Progressive movement is frankly chilling if you examine what their beliefs actually entailed.
If you hate labourers who spend their time in the bar, Catholics, Jews, or foreigners with their weird customs, but are cool with anti-black racism, Progressivism wants you!
Walrus birth doesn't make good breakfast conversation!

Wolter
User avatar
Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Woody Allen
Posts: 49225
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Contact:

Re: Attn: eumaas

Post by Wolter » 07 Apr 2016, 11:20pm

Dr. Medulla wrote:
Wolter wrote:Yeah, the Progressive movement is frankly chilling if you examine what their beliefs actually entailed.
If you hate labourers who spend their time in the bar, Catholics, Jews, or foreigners with their weird customs, but are cool with anti-black racism, Progressivism wants you!
I think that was Woodrow Wilson's campaign poster from 1912.
"There's something more honest, he believed, about traditional methods of mass starvation, labour camps, and machine gunning millions to death. Stalin was a vinyl guy who sneered at Truman converting everything to compact disc." - Thomas Jefferson

"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests