Yggdrasill wrote:I don't understand the point of following someone like that - or Rush, or Tucker etc. - because I don't hear anything new or interesting or revealing. You can read speeches from Hitler or Goebbels, or Le Pen or any number of nativist facists and get the gist. It's all been done before. Same ideas and methods, different setting and targets of animosity.
I don't think it has anything to do with traditional conservatism, rather that "conservatism" has been hijacked by its worst fringe thinkers. And it is fascist, not populist. One definition of populism reads, "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." This resonates in the United States because the concerns of the majority are in fact largely disregarded by financial elites.
The bold part is 100% true.
But I disagree with yuor characterization of Fascists. Honestly, I've never paid much attention to anything Goebbels ever said, or to much of Hitler, but the Fascists, proto-Fascists, and all sorts of other folks lumped in with them left us a great deal of writing.
Some of it is kind of crazy and shallow, like Moseley's
100 Questions. But some of this is really stuff that needs to be studied, like the work of Evola or Guenon. I am not well read in this regards, though.
But this
same thing can be said of the left.I remember hearing about Emma Goldman and thinking she must be amazing -- a female anarchist and "political philosopher." A few of the blurbs on the internet also seemed good... But if you ever do read her works, they are boring, repetitive, and hopelessly trapped in the happenings of her day. Yet, she gets a long and reverant Wikipedia shrine.
Marxism completely face-planted in terms of being a theory that could be implemented, murdering a magnificent pile of people... Yet, Communist writers & thinkers can be treated seriously and discussed open mindedly, while proto-Fascists and third position writers, whose ideas cannot be said to directy contribute to any violent regime in some cases, are treated like pariahs. It's a weird double standard.
This page has an interesting essay on the similarities and differences between populism and fascism. https://qz.com/847040/the-key-differenc ... d-fascism/
From this essay:
Federico Finchelstein, a professor of history at the New School in New York City, pointed out to Quartz that the two political doctrines share some core traits.
Here’s what makes a figure like Trump a text-book populist:
division of society into two camps, “the people” and “the elites”
a proud antagonism toward intellectuals
the rejection of culture and knowledge in favor of instinct
the promotion of polarizing views
demonization of one’s opponent
a contempt for judiciary, military, and political powers
a strong intolerance of free press
A key distinction is that while populism undermines democracy, "fascism outright rejects democracy." This is one reason why the theme of a "stolen election" is so dangerous.
Again from the essay, elements of fascism include:
the cult of tradition and the past, of action over thought, of machismo
the fear of difference
the appeal to a frustrated middle class
the obsession with international conspiracies
an exaggeration of the power of enemies
the demonization of “rotten” parliamentary governments
the use of simple, impoverished language
the glorification of the people as a monolith holding common views
And there's more. Fascism requires a leader who claims to be persecuted (that's what resonates with people who feel disenfranchised). Truth is not important; obedience is. There is very little "conservatism" in this approach.
Let's really look at some of these things:
division of society into two camps, “the people” and “the elites”The left can be said to do exactly the same, the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie. Likewise, the American right does it -- the patriots versus the Communists or leftists who want to sell America out.
a proud antagonism toward intellectualsToday, everybody would say that the intellectual institutions were dominated by white men who discriminated against everyone else in America... Is it hard to believe that the intellectual classes in different countries at different times, and in the West today, are not likewise dominated by single narratives and groups?
It can be a completely fair claim.
Indeed, one of the popular left narrative sis that institutions
remain unfairly dominated by certain groups.the rejection of culture and knowledge in favor of instinct
Where are the Fascists doing that? You do see this in the writings of F. T. Marinetti, but this happens
right alongside the glorification of marching into future technologies, and it is accompanied by efforts to
return to blood and honesty, simply overflowing with romance & visceral imagery:
I ask you that the defeated bulls are conceded a funeral procession, solemn and pompous of bull men horses harnessed with gold in an Andalusian noon, a painstaking embalming in shining salts with compressed algae and a vast tomb of granite equal to the one of the Sacred Bulls of Egypt.the promotion of polarizing views
demonization of one’s opponent
... These accusations brought to you by people who gave you the Cold War and make claims that Proud Boys are a white supremacist terror group.
Which group of people do not end up doing this?
The "Center", where polarization does not exist, is an illusion.
LEt's skip some...
the cult of tradition and the past, of action over thought, of machismo
It is true that tradition is given a much higher place. But the counter-claim that Capitalism leads to intense atomization and the creationof a cult of the individual can be just as persusive, IMO.
"Action over thought" is basically just saying "deeds over words."
"Machismo" is not a pejorative, IMO; we can just make the counter-claim that Capitalism & Liberal Democracy promote emasculation.
... Which is why maybe we should end it here.
None of these claims are persuasive unless you already buy into the conclusion.
None of these claims are fully honest, unless you would allow for people to paint an equally dreary picture of lib. democracy or Communism through a series of quick catch-phrases.
More importantly, they just aren't that accurate to me.