Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

[Immanuel Can]

Europe is an ideal, and Europe requires being preserved. But I am aware that my relation is abstract.

I would argue that "Europe" is a bad ideal. It doesn't "require" our "preservation," because it's never actually existed in reality. What there is instead is the clash of disparate nations, each vying for control of the others, and none committed to the same outcome, except perhaps the preservation of this bloody-minded nonsense about "Europe" becoming a thing.

The Romans tried to do it. Charlemagne tried to do it. Napoleon tried to do it. Hitler tried to do it. Stalin aspired to do it, and had his go, and failed. Now the Brussels autocrats are trying to do it. It's never, never been a good idea.

We should quit trying it before more people die.

Belloc wrote that the “edifice of civilization which we have inherited, and which is still our trust, trembles and threatens to crash down”. He is warning us about the impending destruction of European civilization. “It is clearly insecure. It may fall in any moment. We who still live may see the ruin. But ruin when it comes is not only a sudden, it is also a final, thing.”

Hooray. If we remain distinct nations, we will be better off. We will lose no part of our "civilization," since "European civilization" was never a thing anyway. There was always Dutch civilization, and English civilization, and Danish civilization, and so on. They will go on.

[Alizia]

Hooray. If we remain distinct nations, we will be better off. We will lose no part of our "civilization," since "European civilization" was never a thing anyway. There was always Dutch civilization, and English civilization, and Danish civilization, and so on. They will go on.

In the present, certain people of the western nations, and these include the English-speaking colonies, are questioning and opposing the present manifestation of liberalism as it morphs into a system with totalitarian tendencies. Some use such general and also vague terms as 'globalization' and 'multi-culturalism' to refer to something they oppose. Mostly it seems to be sparked by the problem of immigration, Europe being 'invaded' by foreign refugees, but there are a wide range of concerns. As these people try to get a grip on what is happening, they search around for reasons and explanations. They turn to an analysis of the present and the forces moulding the present.

The issue of 'identity' comes up strongly because, they say, in multiculturalism there is a tendency to weaken nationalistic, cultural and ethnic identity, for another form of identification that is sponsored by elites (a common term) with multi-ethnic idealism and goals. In the face of this I notice people turning back to identifications that they discover for themselves and that they define, not ones provided to them.

One of the strong identifications I have noticed is that of identifying, strengthening and giving emphasis to one's cultural and national heritage in the sense of 'origin'. To define 'white' and 'whiteness' has become, among these people, not only important but crucial. As that definition is explored, I have noticed, one sees that it is essentially European-ness that is being defined. But instead of noting, as you note, that each nation in Europe is distinct, there is an attempt to create a larger pan-European identity which can function as a focus of identity and, according to them, or self-preservation.

You say something interesting, though I think it is mistaken to a degree:

We will lose no part of our "civilization," since "European civilization" was never a thing anyway.

This seems to me in most senses nearly completely false. But I will try to find out what is your motivation for seeking to weaken, shall I say, the identification with European Civilization. You remind me that there is such a thing as ideals and idealism, and that in fact an ideal and an idealism is often non-substantial. An ideal arises from certain ideas or concepts or assertions of value that -- if I may be permitted to say it like this -- come from outside and beyond our world. In fact, this is how I understand the 'spirit' of Christian idealism (and I mention this because I gather from reading your many posts that this is your orientation). The ethics of Christianity, in my view, do not seem to be the natural ethics of 'the world', and in this sense they are in many senses radical counter-currents injected into the world we know.

I am especially interested in this question as I confront the radical Right-Wing, the new manifestation of ideas of nationalism, new discussions about race and ethnicity, revisiting of old questions having to do with boundaries and limits, preservation of culture and tradition, as well as the rediscovery of what I call 'metaphysical bases' through which traditional religious attitudes have always been grounded. I am actually very interested in Christianity in its essential sense (to the degree that I understand it) and yet at the very same time -- it runs concurrent -- I have significant criticism of Christian attitudes. For example, I cannot get around recognizing the truth in many of Nietzsche's cutting observations about the negative effect of Christianity. Oddly, I would refer to Christianity's spiritual universalism as, obviously, an influence toward the good and goodness, but equally a weakening and dissolving influence.

And within the rising Radical Right movements, which I am (largely) certain are here to stay and which will have a great influence over the next decades, there is a Christian-metaphysical movement which seeks to confront the dissolving and weakening effects that undermine its focus within the specific. For example, in strengthening one's own nation, one's own community, one's own people. This does not mean (as I see things) a denial of the spirituality of other peoples, nor deny their struggles (let us say within Christian communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America which are certainly on the rise and will eventually outnumber white European Christians), but it does seem to call for a separation and a clarification. For example, one might be a committed spiritual Christian with a strong Christian social ethic, but one might choose to be radically opposed to dissolving of borders, to the blending cultures, and avidly interested in preserving and distinguishing ethnicities and races. In this then a new ethical focus arises: harder perhaps? less 'tolerant'? based on a different set of limits and values? However, this does turn against many of the general Christian ideas and idealisms.

This is the sense I refer to when I speculate about a Heideggerian influence taking place now in our present. That is to say that Heidegger's ideas about 'being' and also about nationalism and realizing that one's location and ethnicity (the physical structure where one arises) is something worthy of being emphasized, understood, valued. Even in an exclusive sense. And there is a further note as well: that of the Christian soldier: one who engages in actual battle on the manifest plane to protect interests, or, I guess, to extend them.

In any case, perhaps this clarifies an aspect of my own views about 'Europe'. I said it was abstract and I mean this in an ideal sense. I do not mean a European Federation. And I do mean a rediscovery of everything that has made Europe what it is. This involves historical and intellectual research. But I do say this specifically in the sense of distinguishing it from any other place be it Asia, Africa or Latin America. In this sense then Europe must be preserved. What I refer to -- very much -- was a "thing". And it is a "thing". It is a "thing" requiring recognition and valuation, and it also requires the strength of the fasces: the coming together of people from different ethnic and national backgrounds to protect the things they value. I use the term that you brought up a bit ironically. I can cite you many many different examples of people beginning to think in these terms and organize their counter-activism against subsuming forces. It is simply 'joining together in common interest' and is done perhaps more out of a sense of agape than anything else.

[Immanuel Can]

In the present, certain people of the western nations, and these include the English-speaking colonies, are questioning and opposing the present manifestation of liberalism as it morphs into a system with totalitarian tendencies.

Absolutely. That's a serious danger. Historically, large conglomerations of profoundly disparate nations have been achieved only by violence: empires, colonies, and so on. Even in consensual democracies, such as the US, or even more, like Canada, unity has only been achieved by lopping off dissenting factions. (Ask the African Americans about how much they were consulted in the US, or aboriginals how prominently they were allowed to figure in Confederation.)

No matter how idealistic and well-intended the proponents of such a conglomeration seem, they inevitably find that their unification project cannot succeed without eliminating certain indigestible factions from concern. In fact, the more idealistic and enthusiastic the cause seems at first, the more utopian its intention, the more quickly they accept the expedient of forcing their will forward. The question, then, is only, "Who's going to die?"

The issue of 'identity' comes up strongly because, they say, in multiculturalism there is a tendency to weaken nationalistic, cultural and ethnic identity, for another form of identification that is sponsored by elites (a common term) with multi-ethnic idealism and goals. In the face of this I notice people turning back to identifications that they discover for themselves and that they define, not ones provided to them.

Yes. And that's a conservative idea. It's the idea that the individual, not the collective, is the fundamental unit of society...every individual has a uniqueness worthy of preservation. The conservative idea, then, is to protect the rights of individuals against the encroachments of the collectives that invariably seek to control the individual through collectivization and government. And this is the rationale for limiting government.

One of the strong identifications I have noticed is that of identifying, strengthening and giving emphasis to one's cultural and national heritage in the sense of 'origin'. To define 'white' and 'whiteness' has become, among these people, not only important but crucial.

You know, I hear this a lot from the Left. But I don't see it. I have very rarely met someone who was a true racist white -- I don't deny the possibility they exist, because I know the history of things like slavery, the KKK and the Democratic Party in the US, or of white supremacy in Germany, of course; but there are not armies of white supremacists clogging traffic in Portland, trying to control the academies, dominating the media, boycotting Israel, and so on. All of that, I'm seeing come from the Left.

I don't think "whiteness" ideology is any kind of general problem today. The real "radical Right," which would be things like Nazis, the KKK, the Skinheads, the Brownshirts, and so on...they have effectively no influence at all on politics generally, and a generally bad profile in all the media. They are few, scattered and stupid, so far as I can tell. But I think the Left would like us to believe that they loom large, because the Left uses irrational panic about "hordes of dangerous racists/sexists/homophobes/Islamophobes/etc." to get us to capitulate to its agenda.

As that definition is explored, I have noticed, one sees that it is essentially European-ness that is being defined. But instead of noting, as you note, that each nation in Europe is distinct, there is an attempt to create a larger pan-European identity which can function as a focus of identity and, according to them, or self-preservation.

I'm not seeing that. I would say it's the Europe enthusiasts like Merkel and May who are pro-immigration. The anti-immigration movements are all about preservation of national identity in the face of an overwhelming and sudden influx of alien values.

You say something interesting, though I think it is mistaken to a degree:

We will lose no part of our "civilization," since "European civilization" was never a thing anyway.

This seems to me in most senses nearly completely false. But I will try to find out what is your motivation for seeking to weaken, shall I say, the identification with European Civilization.

Well, give me one artifact, event, or bit of "civilization" whatever that was done by "European civilization" exclusively, rather than, say, Brits or Germans or Italians or the French, or what have you. There isn't a single one, actually. There is no "Europe." There never has been. It's always been a collective geographic concept describing a sub-continent, not a culture, nation, language or peoples.

"Europe" qua Europe never did anything before Brussels invented the European Union.

You remind me that there is such a thing as ideals and idealism, and that in fact an ideal and an idealism is often non-substantial. An ideal arises from certain ideas or concepts or assertions of value that -- if I may be permitted to say it like this -- come from outside and beyond our world. In fact, this is how I understand the 'spirit' of Christian idealism (and I mention this because I gather from reading your many posts that this is your orientation). The ethics of Christianity, in my view, do not seem to be the natural ethics of 'the world', and in this sense they are in many senses radical counter-currents injected into the world we know.

I'm not sure what you mean by "idealist," there. I'm certainly not someone who holds to that in any Berkeleyan or philosophical sense. But perhaps you're pointing to the fact that Christianity holds that there is more than the material to this world -- that the horizon has no lid, so to speak. And in that sense, you'd be more correct.

I am especially interested in this question as I confront the radical Right-Wing,

If you ever find them, give me a call and we'll fight them together. I can't locate them lately. They may be "out there" somewhere, but I never meet them, nor do I find their views getting public attention.

I am actually very interested in Christianity in its essential sense (to the degree that I understand it) and yet at the very same time -- it runs concurrent -- I have significant criticism of Christian attitudes. For example, I cannot get around recognizing the truth in many of Nietzsche's cutting observations about the negative effect of Christianity.

Oh, Nietzsche got that bit really wrong. I'm afraid he had a cartoon view of Christianity. He really knew nothing about it. His guesses about what drives it were all external and confused.

I enjoy reading Nietzsche, actually. I don't agree with him about everything -- particularly his venom against Christians and Jews, for example, or his belief that "God is dead" conceptually. But I find him quite accurate about how secularism inevitably issues in Nihilism, for example. I think every day proves him right about that.

Have you read "The Madman's Tale"? It's really not to be missed. But if you read it carefully, you find Nietzsche is not at all saying that the loss of belief in God is going to work out well for civilization. It's too easy to read only as far as the "God is dead" bit (which is right at the start) and then fall asleep when he starts talking about what that will mean for the world. You could even argue that Nietzsche opened the door for Hitler...and if that's too harsh, you would still have to say he did absolutely nothing to close that door. He left the Nazis not just as an open option, but as a necessary outcome. It's not at all by accident that the first philosopher the Nazis embraced was Nietzsche.

I can recommend that you read "The Madman's Tale," if you haven't already. It's very short, and not difficult to digest.

Oddly, I would refer to Christianity's spiritual universalism as, obviously, an influence toward the good and goodness, but equally a weakening and dissolving influence.

Umm...Christians aren't spiritual universalists.

This does not mean (as I see things) a denial of the spirituality of other peoples, nor deny their struggles (let us say within Christian communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America which are certainly on the rise and will eventually outnumber white European Christians),

Statistically, though not influentially, they already do.

For example, one might be a committed spiritual Christian with a strong Christian social ethic, but one might choose to be radically opposed to dissolving of borders, to the blending cultures, and avidly interested in preserving and distinguishing ethnicities and races. In this then a new ethical focus arises: harder perhaps? less 'tolerant'? based on a different set of limits and values? However, this does turn against many of the general Christian ideas and idealisms.

Christianity's actually completely non-ethnic. It's a bunch of multicultural people following a man from the Middle East. The most Christians right now are probably in China, and the most per-capita Christian nation is actually South Korea. And, as I say, there are far more Christians in the developing world than there are in North America.

Thus, any imposition of some kind of exclusive ethnic "whiteness" on Christianity is a historical and factual injustice.

And what do you do with all the Christians who are by far the most active participants in international aid? If Christianity is intrinsically racist, what are those folks doing there, living on little, getting malaria, building wells, offering education and handing out medicine to "natives"? (I've been involved with all of that myself, actually, so I know what I'm talking about there.)

And there is a further note as well: that of the Christian soldier: one who engages in actual battle on the manifest plane to protect interests, or, I guess, to extend them.

"Christian soldier"? Can you name one?

In this sense then Europe must be preserved.

Why?

What's so great about this illusory thing called "Europe"? As I say, you can't find one thing it's really done before Brussels.

What I refer to -- very much -- was a "thing". And it is a "thing". It is a "thing" requiring recognition and valuation, and it also requires the strength of the fasces: the coming together of people from different ethnic and national backgrounds to protect the things they value.

But this sort of talk takes for granted that they "value" the same things. They just don't. There's not enough commonality there to hold the thing together. There wasn't when they were all separate nations, and there isn't now that there's a massive influx from places that hold to vastly different social values.

Is it really your supposition, as an obviously intelligent woman, that boiling "values" down to that which can be conceded as "valuable" by ALL cultures will include women's rights? It's not apparent to me that it will. And I would be concerned if it didn't -- but not nearly as concerned as perhaps you might be.

I use the term that you brought up a bit ironically. I can cite you many many different examples of people beginning to think in these terms and organize their counter-activism against subsuming forces. It is simply 'joining together in common interest' and is done perhaps more out of a sense of agape than anything else.

If it were agape, then their methods would be quite other than they manifestly are. Collectivism is inevitably violent, but today it is also deliberately offensive, aggressive, self-satisfied, profane, dishonest and belligerent. One has only to attend one "march" to see that for oneself. There is no smattering of agape wherever it leaves its mark, I'm afraid; because it has no respect for the individual, for his or her rights or for his or her dissent from the politically-correct tale. I would certainly never look to it for a Christian solution.

[Alizia]

In any case, perhaps this clarifies an aspect of my own views about 'Europe'. I said it was abstract and I mean this in an ideal sense. I do not mean a European Federation. And I do mean a rediscovery of everything that has made Europe what it is. This involves historical and intellectual research. But I do say this specifically in the sense of distinguishing it from any other place be it Asia, Africa or Latin America. In this sense then Europe must be preserved.

When I refer to "Europe" note that I put quotes around it. I refer, intentionally, to an ideal, just as Hilaire Belloc did and, possibly, for the same or similar reasons. I do not advocate for a Federation or for a European Political Entity. I am speaking to something that is much more linked to general spiritual ideals and the stuff -- I see it is spiritual and idealistic in origin (and thus intangible) -- upon which Europe was built. Since you do not share my understand I suppose that we can leave it aside.

If you ever find them, give me a call and we'll fight them together. I can't locate them lately. They may be "out there" somewhere, but I never meet them, nor do I find their views getting public attention.

Ah, I see, you took 'confront' to mean engage them in battle. I meant it like 'confront the ideas they work with'. Although I do not think the time we live in supports it, and I have certainly been affected and infected by the 'perversions of liberal modernity', I am now attracted to the more radical right thinkers. However, I do think that we are in a new and different time. I believe that the progressive political thought of today will be not capitalist, not communist, not fascist but (as Dugan suggests) a fourth combination.

I accept that the Left is playing its hand in pretty devious ways, and I believe I understand why they make this choice. I have all sorts of theories and impressions as to why this is happening and to what end. But, I notice that coming to any conclusion is an interpretive question. People are making really strange interpretations.

I have read recently (((Semitism))) by Jonathan Weinstein who very nicely explains the Progressive Jewish view of the NY Intellectual Establishment and its apprehension and terror of white nationalist activism and nativism. And "Backlash" by George Yancy and also Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger and the Return of the Far Right by Ronald Beiner. Each of these people raise significant and not merely imagined nor exaggerated fears about the Far Right. While I do not agree with them in all elements of their opposition, I can say that I fully understand it.

I suggest that you do more research and try to find those places and people that discuss opposition to liberalism in its present forms. It might be because I am aware of this 'conversation', myself read in different places, listen to talks on YouTube, and also read the people and the theory they are reading, that I tend to think the Radical Right has more reach than perhaps it does.

I try to approach these issues from a philosophical perspective to the degree that I can. I support, at least in concept, the right of non-urban sorts, those who have not been through the university-ideological mill (as I feel I have been milled), to resist the 'social engineering' that is perpetrated on them. I even 'support' (in the sense that I understand) their so-called racism or racialism. I turn against the (also so-called) 'coastal elites' who design their fate, as it were.

[Immanuel Can]

When I refer to "Europe" note that I put quotes around it. I refer, intentionally, to an ideal, just as Hilaire Belloc did and, possibly, for the same or similar reasons. I do not advocate for a Federation or for a European Political Entity. I am speaking to something that is much more linked to general spiritual ideals and the stuff -- I see it is spiritual and idealistic in origin (and thus intangible) -- upon which Europe was built. Since you do not share my understand I suppose that we can leave it aside.

No, I do understand. But there are good "ideals" and very bad "ideals." The Third Reich was Hitler's "ideal." The Triumph of the Proletariat was Marx's "ideal." Neither was, for you and me, "ideal": nor even good.

If you ever find them, give me a call and we'll fight them together. I can't locate them lately. They may be "out there" somewhere, but I never meet them, nor do I find their views getting public attention.

Ah, I see, you took 'confront' to mean engage them in battle. I meant it like 'confront the ideas they work with'.

No. I was just pointing out that you can't even find them to "confront" them. The "Dangerous Right" is a propaganda creation of the Left, these days. There's no significant fascist presence on the Right, but we have "Anti-Fa" on the Left -- and ironically, the new "blackshirts" use exactly the same tactics as Hitler's "brownshirts," but claim to be fighting invisible Nazis.

(as Dugan suggests) a fourth combination.

I wonder what that would be.

I suggest that you do more research and try to find those places and people that discuss opposition to liberalism in its present forms.

Oh, I'm pretty up on these things. I know a whole bunch of the opponents of Leftism today. But I don't hear from the Nazis. I don't hear from the KKK. I don't hear from the brownshirts or the skinheads, or the "white power" movement. Conclusion: if there's any such thing today, it's so small and weak as to be unworthy of anyone's attention. But from the way the Left talks, you'd think that the barbarians were at the gates.

It's nonsense.

It might be because I am aware of this 'conversation', myself read in different places, listen to talks on YouTube, and also read the people and the theory they are reading, that I tend to think the Radical Right has more reach than perhaps it does.

Well, one good practice is not to listen to people who talk about "the Radical Right," but to go and see what they claim to be talking about. It's easy today to find radical Leftists -- but finding actual radical rightists is only slightly easier than hunting unicorns. They're darn few, and very, very far between.

Jordan Peterson has this well-explained, though: he says that we know what a "radical Rightist" would look like, but we have left undefined what it means to say a person has gone "too far to the Left." Peterson's proposal is that when we hear talk tip over into "equality of outcomes" talk, then that's a signal of radical Leftism.

That's really good, actually. And I have yet to find a better criterion than that.

I feel I have been milled),

Can I ask where, and for how long? I'm just interested. I've been watching the rankings of US and Canadian universities on this issue. (Don't worry; however long it is, I can almost guarantee I've personally been "milled" longer. Maybe not, but very probably. And at some of the worst-offending such institutions.)

[Alizia]

If it were agape, then their methods would be quite other than they manifestly are. Collectivism is inevitably violent, but today it is also deliberately offensive, aggressive, self-satisfied, profane, dishonest and belligerent. One has only to attend one "march" to see that for oneself. There is no smattering of agape wherever it leaves its mark, I'm afraid; because it has no respect for the individual, for his or her rights or for his or her dissent from the politically-correct tale. I would certainly never look to it for a Christian solution.

With this I think I disagree, but I notice that we do not have mutually agreed on points of reference. I say that the people that I am aware of who are trying to be 'active for their people' (for example numerous of the Identitaire branches in Europe) seem to me to be motivated by agape if that is defined for love that is above merely erotic or filial love and is more close to the love that motivates those who serve their people disinterestedly).

I would further suggest that, even if this is not a refined or developed sentiment, then it needs to be. I am not speaking about "collectivism" and neither are they.

[Immanuel Can]

If it were agape, then their methods would be quite other than they manifestly are. Collectivism is inevitably violent, but today it is also deliberately offensive, aggressive, self-satisfied, profane, dishonest and belligerent. One has only to attend one "march" to see that for oneself. There is no smattering of agape wherever it leaves its mark, I'm afraid; because it has no respect for the individual, for his or her rights or for his or her dissent from the politically-correct tale. I would certainly never look to it for a Christian solution.

With this I think I disagree,

Why? Did you watch any footage of, say, the last "Women's March"? Are there any of those adjectives that aren't abundantly on display there? Or is it the riots in California that you haven't seen? Was it the radical right throwing barricades, burning stuff, kicking windows and tying to silence Jewish voices?

agape if that is defined for love that is above merely erotic or filial love

I know exactly what agape means, all the way back to the Greek, in fact.

...would further suggest that, even if this is not a refined or developed sentiment, then it needs to be. I am not speaking about "collectivism" and neither are they

.
That's for sure. There's precious little agape on the Left, it seems.

But agape always needs a high motive. People don't set aside self-interest, normally, for the good of others unless they have a compelling ontologically-based motive for doing so. So to increase agape, you've got to supply a motive to those who will have to pay the price of practicing agape, and convince them that it is ultimately right and worthwhile to do so -- not an easy task in our age, so dominated as it is by self-interested people and collectives.

[Alizia]

If you are interested in a Fourth Political Theory you could skip through this conversation with Michael Millerman and some others. He encountered a great deal of resistance to his research project at the University of Toronto and, in fact, Ronald Beiner abandoned him because, as Beiner says, any consideration of such thinkers amounts to supporting or disseminating their ideas, which he regards as 'dangerous'.

It is as he says: not capitalist, not communist, not fascist necessarily. But something perhaps involving synthesis.

All the people that I have encountered on the Far Right -- of the sorts that are intellectually oriented -- are exploring different political theories and also the deeper existential questions (definitions involving what life in this plane demands and requires) that I refer to as 'metaphysical'. Perhaps it would be better to describe some of these Traditionalist thinkers as exploring esoteric themes.

If you are interested in understanding why I would say that some of the activists today do seem to me to be working from higher motives (even being somewhat naive about what they are up against), I suggest Martin Sellner.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote 15 march:

The key ideological note is this: do you trust human nature or not? If you think people are basically good and can be trusted to do the right thing, you'll be a Leftist, and favour some sort of strong, centralized authority -- Communism, socialism, monarchy, autocracy, dictatorship...something like that. You'll want power to become strongly centralized, because you'll trust what will happen when it becomes that. You'll think it will issue in more efficient changes, and better outcomes. In fact, you'll resent anybody who doesn't join you in that enthusiasm: they'll seem retrograde to you, and you'll resent that they hold you back from the "utopia" you perceive can be had through big government. They'll look too "conservative."

Leftists are pessimistic about human nature. The presence of strong central government is a sign that uncooperative people need to be governed by the rule of law.

There is progress from Judeo Christianity towards socialism. Indeed one main interpretation of the life of Jesus is the socialist one.Regarding equality of opportunity and equality of outcome they are a continuum. The socialist tries to ameliorate the unhappy results of natural greed and in- group mentalities of the powerful. True, the less than powerful are also greedy and in-groupy but the less than powerful do no worse than small scale crimes against humanity and the natural environment.
Immanuel predicted that when and where there is no ontological foundation for agape it will wither away. (My words).Perhaps that is so. But Christianity founded as it is upon a man is a shape changer that can inform agnostics and atheists, that's to say it's for people who may or may not believe in the myths. The essential message is too stark to become invisible, and also it sits well with a measure of pessimism about human nature.

I live in Europe and I feel European. Some others who live in Europe don't feel European. I am Scottish . I have only positive experiences with other European nationals.

[Alizia]

The "Dangerous Right" is a propaganda creation of the Left, these days. There's no significant fascist presence on the Right, but we have "Anti-Fa" on the Left -- and ironically, the new "blackshirts" use exactly the same tactics as Hitler's "brownshirts," but claim to be fighting invisible Nazis.

I see it differently. Because I see average people, average citizens, as being essentially and normally conservative, they tend not to be open to the more 'progressive' social trends and tendencies. They are also often not very open to strangers entering their environment. The 'nativists' are usually people from the lower, labouring classes, and it is often these people who have racialist ideas (racist if you wish). The 'dangerous right', according to people like Jonathan Weisman, Ronald Beiner and George Yancy is a certain class of people who are, in their case, native to America. Those people have reactionary tendencies and can be prone to violence. As you might be aware, this 'psychology' was described in The Authoritarian Personality as something that had to be modified, reconstructed.

You are not taking into account the nativist, reactionary (in this case American), nationalist and anti-government groups and their 'movement' that arose around the time of the Vietnam War. See Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America by Kathleen Belew where she describes one phase of the radicalization of part of a generation.

• Returning to an America ripped apart by a war they felt they were not allowed to win, a small group of veterans and active-duty military personnel and civilian supporters concluded that waging war on their own country was justified. They unified people from a variety of militant groups, including Klansmen, neo-Nazis, skinheads, radical tax protestors, and white separatists to form a new movement of loosely affiliated independent cells to avoid detection. The white power movement operated with discipline and clarity, undertaking assassinations, armed robbery, counterfeiting, and weapons trafficking. Its command structure gave women a prominent place and put them in charge of brokering alliances and birthing future recruits.

Then, there was Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City.

I have researched these things and I feel I can assure you that there is more of an American Radical Right than you seem to assume. The newer manifestation of the Right (the Alt-Right) arises from different groups, and likely a different generation, but it is nativist in the same sense as the KKK was American-nativist in the 1920s. While you are likely right that there is far less of a militant Right than the MSM tries to indicate, my research has indicated that it is a real thing. And a thing of concern.

The Right in Europe is also real, as are the policies of leadership in Hungary and Poland. There are smallish concentrations of right-leaning ideologues in all the European countries, in OZ and NZ, in US and Canada, and there are also such groups in Argentina and Chile (where there are large European-descended populations who are quite 'white').

Oh, I'm pretty up on these things. I know a whole bunch of the opponents of Leftism today. But I don't hear from the Nazis. I don't hear from the KKK. I don't hear from the brownshirts or the skinheads, or the "white power" movement. Conclusion: if there's any such thing today, it's so small and weak as to be unworthy of anyone's attention. But from the way the Left talks, you'd think that the barbarians were at the gates.

Well, my impression is that there are people doing (revisionist) research into Nazism and the two European wars -- Mark Weber and David Irving for example -- are described as Nazis or as sympathizers, but if there are actual Nazis they are 1) adolescents role-playing or 2) people drawn to George Lincoln Rockwell and those like him. I have researched the man and find that he has many redeeming features. He is not really a 'Nazi' in my view but one who sought to alarm and stimulate. He is a critic more than anything. You can hear and see his university talks on YouTube where they shout him down and he shouts back . . .

As to the KKK and such, what I can tell you is that there are Southerners who are rethinking history and have their own, sometimes radical ideas. You can find their intellectual 'leaders' at the Abbeville Institute. Some of the people who went to Charlottesville to protect the removal of monuments were influenced by these heritage-protection ideals. Then, there is David Duke. Because I won't form an opinion of someone until I have read their material, I read about 1/2 of his biography. He has more in common with Jefferson than with anyone else. He is completely 'American'.

Perhaps these people are weak and small, I can see that, but they are more dangerous in certain ways because, in truth, they represent 'real America', and real America has strong and definite conservative, and violent, capacities. I accept the suggestion that it is this 'America' that is being reengineered. I do not say whether that is right or wrong. But it is what is happening.

[Immanuel Can]

All the people that I have encountered on the Far Right...

I'm wondering who you might mean, and whether they'd be anyone I'd know. Do any of these you refer to as "Far Right" have a presence in the major media, for example?

[Immanuel Can]

...uncooperative people...

That's exactly what they call you before they put you in a gulag.

...need to be governed by the rule of law

That's conservative, really. The "rule of law" is a thing offered in opposition to the "rule" of much worse things, such as "the rule of factions" or "the rule of a dictator."

There is progress from Judeo Christianity towards socialism.

"Progress"? From the one ideology that actually grounds human rights, toward the one that killed 148 million people in the last century? That's "progress"?

Indeed one main interpretation of the life of Jesus is the socialist one.

No credible interpretations of Jesus Christ are socialist. None are even political, let alone that.

Regarding equality of opportunity and equality of outcome they are a continuum.

No, they're dead opposites.

If I give you equality of opportunity with someone less smart / strong /capable than you, the result will inevitably be unequal outcomes. The only way I can achieve equal outcomes is by handicapping you, and giving unequal advantages to the person who is less capable. And that will require me to use violence against you.

That's why every socialist-run state is violent.

[Belinda]

I had written

The presence of strong central government is a sign that uncooperative people need to be governed by the rule of law.

Immanuel Can responded that that's exactly what they call you before they put you in a gulag.

True, cooperation is not in itself enough. The people need also to be well enough housed, fed, leisured, and educated before they can exert decent judgement about what and who to cooperate with.

I am not a communist, for the reason you hint at. I am a socialist who believes that socialism can and does take some of the sting out of natural human greed.

IC wrote:

Regarding equality of opportunity and equality of outcome they are a continuum.

No, they're dead opposites.

If I give you equality of opportunity with someone less smart / strong /capable than you, the result will inevitably be unequal outcomes. The only way I can achieve equal outcomes is by handicapping you, and giving unequal advantages to the person who is less capable. And that will require me to use violence against you.

That's why every socialist-run state is violent.

Perhaps you and I use the term 'socialist' with different meanings. Not every every socialist run state is violent. I was an adult in Britain when Clement Attlee's government installed the National Health Service.

Handicaps and opportunities are each relative to other handicaps and opportunities. Balance of handicaps and opportunities imposed by a democratic state control wealth differentials between persons and social classes. A democratic state will not handicap anybody or any good or industry unnecessarily. for instance in England as you probably know there are very expensive fee paying schools which are generally pretty good educators. This would seem to be good for the country as a whole. However the disadvantage of the privileges of old Etonians (for instance) are that there is old boys' club preferment, and the preferment of privileged people handicaps others who are not rich and whose potentially valuable contributions to society are thus inhibited. Don't you support meritocracy?

Free at point of need health service is socialist. When private enterprise health care is not handicapped valuable health workers are leeched from the public to the private service and a majority of patients suffer while a minority benefit . In addition the NHS, and the non-fee paying schools are not "less capable" as you put it. A lot of privilege is historical in origin and a lot of privilege is sheer theft, and these facts are detrimental to the strength of the nation that countenances privilege.


Rule of law: every civilised state needs it whatever the political colour.

"Jesus Christ" you wrote. I did not say Jesus Christ I said Jesus. The message of Jesus was socialist in tone .

[Alizia]

Though I may be mistaken, I think you, Belinda, and Immanuel Can are speaking to different things. When Immanuel Can uses the term 'socialism' he means historical political socialism/communism. When you refer to social tendencies within Christianity you are referring, I would gather, to the admonitions of the Prophets. For example in Amos:

Hear this, O ye that swallow up the needy, even to make the poor of the land to fail, Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit? That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes; yea, and sell the refuse of the wheat?

I hate, I despise your festivals…But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

Catholic social teaching, I think it is fair to say, places emphasis on concern for other people and, in accord with Biblical principles, with social justice (taking a stand against injustice). But I gather that what concerns Immanuel Can is when powerful factions assume political control through violence and seek to 'remake man', control the means of production, establish themselves as the directing elites, and wind up crushing, often quite literally, the souls of men.

My view is that some societies legislate social concerns -- healthcare or unemployment insurance -- but these are not quite the same as a totalizing socialism. It is one thing if people develop social concern as a tenet of their ethical practice, quite another when a governing regime assumes that role.

It is a bit of a problem to disentangle 'genuine social concerns' from the machinations of Marxian operatives, and there seems no doubt that these concern-areas have become blended. It is not hard to notice in our present the rise of a sort of totalitarian liberal regime. This is quite different from a regional social consciousness.

The Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching

1) Life and Dignity of the Human Person

2) Call to Family, Community, and Participation

3) Rights and Responsibilities

4) Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

5) The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers

6) Solidarity

7) Care for God's Creation

[Alizia]

I'm wondering who you might mean, and whether they'd be anyone I'd know. Do any of these you refer to as "Far Right" have a presence in the major media, for example?

The people that I would refer to, whom I have read to some degree, who are described as being on the Far Right or the Extreme Right -- maybe they are and maybe they are not -- would be for example Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson. It seems to me that Greg Johnson has the most developed, the most rational and articulate ideas. He wrote a book (recently banned on Amazon BTW, along with numerous other of his titles) called The White Nationalist Manifesto. Overall, he is a Platonist and taught for a certain time. It seems to me that his political notions derive from Platonic conceptions.

There is a book: Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy (2019, Oxford) which I have but have not read, that lists these people:

Influencers: Spengler, Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt, Julius Evola

Modern Thinkers: Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, Paul Gottfried, Patrick Buchanan, Jared Taylor, Alexandr Dugan, Bat Ye'or

Emergent Thinkers: Mencius Moldbug, Greg Johnson, Richard B. Spencer, Jack Donovan, Daniel Friberg