Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

[Alizia]

One other thought: when a given culture, say one of the European nations, has largely abandoned the Christian form (they say that Europe is now more secular than ever and it is increasing), one must ask how that people could hold and maintain the structure of view, essentially religious and 'metaphysical', that gave birth to the seven themes of Catholic (Christian) social doctrine. There would no longer be a 'subject' who was actively cultivating those concerns, which are inward and spiritual, and therefore would rely on the State to enforce the social ethics as state-policy. That is a strange turn of events!

[Belinda]

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

I agree, thanks Alizia.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Yes, I think you're right. Thank you for sorting that out.

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.

Nicely put. I agree.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I don't know them (yet, but I'll look them up). People on "the Right," as I would know them would be people like Jordan Peterson, Camile Paglia, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, Bill Whittle, Candace Owens, Thomas Sowell, Dennis Prager and so on...they're all in the centrist Right. I wouldn't even know any real radical "Rightists," nor want to. But I note that the people I've listed are still routinely tarred as "radical" by Leftist rhetoricians, though that mud doesn't stick at all.

Mind you, most of those same Leftists couldn't even begin to tell you the name of anybody they consider too radically "Left."

I don't really waste much time on formal political philosophy. It's a whipping of a very dead horse, but one that continues, unfortunately, to twist with violent and deadly convulsions.

Personally, I actually agree with that esteemed, renowned and august theorist Gordon Sumner, who once penned:

"There is no political solution
To our troubled evolution
Have no faith in constitutions
There is no bloody revolution
We are spirits in the material world."

[Immanuel Can]

One other thought: when a given culture, say one of the European nations, has largely abandoned the Christian form (they say that Europe is now more secular than ever and it is increasing), one must ask how that people could hold and maintain the structure of view, essentially religious and 'metaphysical', that gave birth to the seven themes of Catholic (Christian) social doctrine. There would no longer be a 'subject' who was actively cultivating those concerns, which are inward and spiritual, and therefore would rely on the State to enforce the social ethics as state-policy. That is a strange turn of events!

Well, and since "States" are contingent and local entities, that would mean that the ethics would be merely contingent and local. So when a practice like slavery, racism or female circumcision is acclaimed and practiced by one society, that would leave any other society and the UN with no rational basis to protest, or intervene, or claim "human rights" were being violated at all, no matter how horrible the behaviour of that society became. There would, in fact, be no "human" rights at all...not even local rights, unless the local state decided to give them, however temporarily.

[Alizia]

I don't know them (yet, but I'll look them up). People on "the Right," as I would know them would be people like Jordan Peterson, Camile Paglia, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, Bill Whittle, Candace Owens, Thomas Sowell, Dennis Prager and so on...they're all in the centrist Right. I wouldn't even know any real radical "Rightists," nor want to. But I note that the people I've listed are still routinely tarred as "radical" by Leftist rhetoricians, though that mud doesn't stick at all.

Mind you, most of those same Leftists couldn't even begin to tell you the name of anybody they consider too radically "Left."

I don't really waste much time on formal political philosophy. It's a whipping of a very dead horse, but one that continues, unfortunately, to twist with violent and deadly convulsions.

As you say they are all 'centrist right'. I have been influenced to see the centrist right as 'attached' to the same basic group of ideas that motivate the Progressive Left. That is, the Progressive Left is the anchor -- of basic values, of basic definitions -- and as the anchor of the Left moves and keeps moving to the left, it drags the centrist right along with it. They say, for example, that the political Right today holds the general idea that the Left was advocating 20-30 years ago (more or less). They also describe the centist Right as 'cuckservative' and with this underhanded term mean to imply that they are really in service to the left-leaning agenda. You'll have to let me know what you think of this.

Peterson, Paglia, Sowell, Praeger (the others I don't know), are interesting, dynamic intellects. Yet I would suggest that each of them, in their way, illustrates 'cuckservatism' (though I must admit I would not have imagined Paglia listed as a member of the Right. If one could cross her genetically with Slavoj Žižek perhaps the New Man could come to exist after all! A strange, gibbering creature but highly entertaining).

"I wouldn't even know any real radical "Rightists," nor want to".

I believe I can understand why you would say this. My own view is that I think this is a mistake, but only for one who is given to understand current events and 'what is going on'. The Radical Right has intellectual roots that are valid and significant. If one does not understand where they are coming from, one will not be able to understand the present very well. In our present we must devise a counter-strategy to oppose and reverse liberal excesses and the liberal shift toward a Maoist progressive totalitarianism. In my view (in 'our' view perhaps I might way) we require new elements of political theory.

[Alizia]

Well, and since "States" are contingent and local entities, that would mean that the ethics would be merely contingent and local. So when a practice like slavery, racism or female circumcision is acclaimed and practiced by one society, that would leave any other society and the UN with no rational basis to protest, or intervene, or claim "human rights" were being violated at all, no matter how horrible the behaviour of that society became. There would, in fact, be no "human" rights at all...not even local rights, unless the local state decided to give them, however temporarily.

I see how your categories work. I see a larger category of *Europeanism* that represents an ideal, traditions, history, and relationship to metaphysics. Europe must survive and 'recover' itself, but of course through each national state. That is my view. We have a great deal in common. If we don't recover it, and strengthen it, we may be destroyed and may perish. Or is this mis-applied romanticism?

My view is that we know what our ethics are, or should be, and thus we can and should defend them within our sphere. I also believe that 'we' should intervene far less in other people's affairs.

In order for there to be what you obviously seem to promote and Christian Values there has to be a Christian culture and, if you will, a Christian soul (a soul given to that spiritual pursuit). If there is no Christian person, there can be no preservation of Christian values. Or, they may continue to exist for a while as 'shadows' but then fade away. Only a specific person, and specific people, can see and act in Christian terms, thus is it completely imperative to turn back to the preservation of Christians and 'Christian lands'.

These ideas are definitely ideas you'd hear on Extremist Right Christian websites. I share them because, well, it is part of a larger, developing conversation and also movement. This is where I may ultimately choose to put my energy.

The 'Christian soldier' is one who chooses to be of service through militancy but 'on the ground'. For example: Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries: The Iron Guard. His book is referred to by those who seek a more 'connected' form of Christian activism. But other people are influenced by Rene Guenon and Julius Evola. They are 'dangerous thinkers' and they do make people uncomfortable. Oh well!

• For My Legionaries: The Iron Guard (the original title in Romanian was Pentru Legionari) is a book written by the Romanian Christian Nationalist leader Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, the founder of the organization The Legion of Michael the Archangel (also known as the Iron Guard). It was first published in 1936 and translated into multiple languages over decades. For My Legionaries is largely autobiographical, with a few sections dedicated to philosophical or ideological thoughts, and was addresssed to the Legionaries who followed him. The book gives much information about Codreanu's life and his fascinating and heroic struggle against corrupt politicians and manipulative Jews in order to create a greater, religiously Christian, and culturally purer Romanian nation.

[Alizia]

Spirits in the Material World

"There is no political solution
To our troubled evolution
Have no faith in constitution
There is no bloody revolution
We are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world

Our so-called leaders speak
With words they try to jail you
They subjugate the meek
But it's the rhetoric of failure
We are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world

Where does the answer lie?
Living from day to day
If it's something we can't buy
There must be another way
We are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world"

I do remember hearing this song but I did not pay much attention to it (his voice annoys me to some degree but that's just me). I will suppose that you appreciate its message because you can interject into it your sense of the Christian mission? An attitude perhaps that we can and should emulate?

I do like to take an 'text' like this and approach it as a 'artifact' so, if you want, I will offer some thoughts.

[Belinda]

Alizia wrote:

One other thought: when a given culture, say one of the European nations, has largely abandoned the Christian form (they say that Europe is now more secular than ever and it is increasing), one must ask how that people could hold and maintain the structure of view, essentially religious and 'metaphysical', that gave birth to the seven themes of Catholic (Christian) social doctrine. There would no longer be a 'subject' who was actively cultivating those concerns, which are inward and spiritual, and therefore would rely on the State to enforce the social ethics as state-policy. That is a strange turn of events!

Judeo Christianity including Islam as a derivative of Judaism share the same general morality. Humanists ' ethics are derived from Judeo Christianity.
The myths are increasingly irrelevant as histories and remain good as poetic narratives or for practical devotional purposes. The perennial question remains "How should I live?" and will not ever disappear as long as there are people who have time and energy left over from basic necessities. These ethical traditions are sufficient to maintain a consensus. I claim that there is no need for an object of worship except as an aid to prayer and so on.

Whether or not there is ontic order matters because when people believe there is no revealed ontic order we get postmodern angst which lasts until decisions are made about which traditions are worthy and reasonable ones, so that a future is created.

[Alizia]

Judeo-Christianity including Islam as a derivative of Judaism share the same general morality.

I think I would largely agree with this, I mean, it would be hard not to. A significant difference with the Christian 'world' is that it almost immediately became associated with the Greek world. Judaism remained isolated within its own cultural traditions. Islam had its own road (which I don't fully understand, I mean historically).

Humanists ' ethics are derived from Judeo-Christianity.

True, and through a Greek philosophical lens. Because of this, I think, it had opportunities for growth and expansion the others did not have.

The myths are increasingly irrelevant as histories and remain good as poetic narratives or for practical devotional purposes.

I would say that that is true for one who does not live 'spiritually' within the practice of Christianity. While I agree that one could look upon the 'myths' (as you say) as necessarily unreal (that is what you mean, I think), and the mental block you establish and describe is essentially your own faithlessness, it is different -- quite so -- for a Christian practitioner.

But I will grant you that in much of the Occident Christianity is becoming irrelevant, as you say. But it is exploding in Latin America, Asia and Africa. See: The Next Christendom (Philip Jenkins). And though it might be shrinking in Europe -- and we tend to see it as a relic -- it is growing stronger among those smaller groups who uphold it. It is a mistake to see it as dying. In fact it is very much the opposite.

The perennial question remains "How should I live?" and will not ever disappear as long as there are people who have time and energy left over from basic necessities. These ethical traditions are sufficient to maintain a consensus. I claim that there is no need for an object of worship except as an aid to prayer and so on.

This is one reason I focus on Heidegger. He represents a turn away from metaphysics (or dis-attached metaphysics one could say) and a turn back into the phenomenal world. But with a renovating will.

Whether or not there is ontic order matters because when people believe there is no revealed ontic order we get postmodern angst which lasts until decisions are made about which traditions are worthy and reasonable ones, so that a future is created.

I think I understand what you mean, and I can relate because I am also 'in' that problem. I would point out that when you use the word 'tradition' in that way you seem to give further evidence of your own remove from what is the essence of the 'tradition', that must be felt, understood, and believed in to be real. It is only real to the degree that one lives in it and out of it. It is not really real when one does not, or cannot.

[Belinda]

Alizia wrote:

I think I understand what you mean, and I can relate because I am also 'in' that problem. I would point out that when you use the word 'tradition' in that way you seem to give further evidence of your own remove from what is the essence of the 'tradition', that must be felt, understood, and believed in to be real. It is only real to the degree that one lives in it and out of it. It is not really real when one does not, or cannot.
Top

I'd like to understand what you mean by the essence of the tradition, that must be felt, understood and believed in to be real.

I believe that a respected myth is necessary to maintain ethical tradition. However there are many myths besides the Christian myth. For instance there is the poetry of William Blake.There are stories about heroes who were also religious. One who inspires me is is Oscar Romero. I was reared in the tradition of Christian myth so I like it. I was also taught to be sceptical so I don't believe that the Christian myth is historically true, which as far as I know Christians are expected to accept or else they cannot be Christians. Especially with regard to the Resurrection event.

I named Oscar Romero,and the Christian myth upholds the poor and oppressed, so naturally Christianity flourishes in Latin America and Africa.

[Alizia]

I'd like to understand what you mean by the essence of the tradition, that must be felt, understood and believed in to be real.

Well, it is somewhat personal to myself and my own situation, that is, the realizations I have had. My husband is a committed Catholic of the traditional variety (those who regard modern Catholicism and its rites as faux-Catholicism) and though I was raised in the shadows of Catholicism, when I made the effort to 'reenter the tradition', I realized that I did not really have the 'essence' of the faith, but rather a reflected version of it. I had been trained through 'academic distance' to think that, say, rational grasp was the avenue to full understanding.

I found that I had to make an effort to find out what the 'essence' in fact was, and in my case -- to the degree that I am successful and I have many self-misgivings -- it only worked so well for me to read academically about Catholicism. It had to become an inner affair. For certain periods of time -- it goes up and down -- I felt I had made contact with the 'essence' which, of course, means that there is a response. Then, I could say that I 'felt something' as a result of encountering the 'essence' and only then was it 'real'. I hope this makes sense.

A relationship to a 'myth' is not a relationship with an 'essence', or to put it in more frank terms, with God or spirit. I think that that mode of relationship comes through people like Joseph Campbell. It seems to me that the mythic approach is for people who have lost their inner connection with their own 'tradition' which is more a way of being. Perhaps the mythic path (if I can call it that) is a way back in to some sort of lived religious experience, which people do seem to need and often to recreate, but it is not the same as a 'real, lived experience' that one profoundly believes in.

For example, if I asked you to 'tell me what reality is' and to describe what Being here is, I assume you would only be able to resort to a biological/material description of things that happened to come about as a result of a cosmic explosion. For you (and for so many of us) that is the 'essential idea' we have: the only one we can have. And if you were then to discuss what 'myth' means to you, it would likely still reflect the basic biological/material understanding of reality that you have. Myth then -- take Romero as an example -- could only express biological/material concerns, and in this way (I think) you would see that essentially your Christian myth is Marxist praxis. I do not mean this in any sense as a criticism! I mean only to say that when we examine our own 'metaphysics', we run into our Essential Explanation of what Being is (and what it is not). I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on what I have just stated here.

I was also taught to be sceptical so I don't believe that the Christian myth is historically true, which as far as I know Christians are expected to accept or else they cannot be Christians. Especially with regard to the Resurrection event.

I believe that I understand. I think though that if the resurrection event cannot be believed in, neither can the incarnation event, nor in fact any part of it unless it is reworked to conform with modern terms and the only modes of visualization available to us. So, I would say -- but without any judgment of your own relationship -- that in fact this is how the lived tradition that had been the foundation of Europe in a metaphysical sense (I use that word often and perhaps I should explain what it means to me) shows itself coming to an end.

Obviously what interests me as a topic of conversation is the recovery of Europe. I gather that the phrase does not resonate with many as it didn't with Immanuel Can. In my own view I believe that either Europe will 'recover itself' (and of course I mean all the different nations of Europe) through realizing what it is, and arresting dissolution, or it will not and will be 'lost'. What is dissolving it must be identified. This is a substantial work. If my view is excessively 'romantic' (it obviously has a romantic element in the strict sense of the word), well, I will have to correct it. However I find myself in contact with many many people who feel as I do, and many of them are involved in the same 'problem'. That problem is having been unseated from something inside oneself, and something external as well, which is the very stuff of Being. I don't know how to express it. Except to say that forces in modernity knock people off of a genuine foundation (authenticity) and dump them in false-worlds of non-being. When that happens people become 'desperate' with the angst of nihilism and incline to psychological ailment and of course 'social madness'.

Of course this is why I did begin here with a book by Beiner on two difficult and highly problematic figures: Nietzsche and Heidegger. He regards them as 'dangerous' thinkers, which means that he regards the thinking of certain people in our present as also dangerous (and he means deviant). I understand his view, but I differ from it.

[Immanuel Can]

As you say they are all 'centrist right'. I have been influenced to see the centrist right as 'attached' to the same basic group of ideas that motivate the Progressive Left.

Not the Progressivist Left. The Centrist Left. And yes, they are very close. They both are acting on a sort of "good hearted" desire to do what is best for others...they tend to disagree only on the methods that would be best.

Jonathan Haidt would be on the Centrist Left. Jordan Peterson, on the Centrist Right. And to nobody's surprise, they're good friends with mutual respect.

That is, the Progressive Left is the anchor -- of basic values,

No, this isn't so. This is a common mistake.

The Left sees itself as values-motivated, and thinks the Right is something like profit-motivated. In the centre, this just isn't true. What Haidt learned from actually studying both groups is that they are both values-motivated. They differ as to the precise objectives to be achieved (like equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome) and the methods to be employed. But that's really all. Both are equally morally earnest.

Both are in the debt of what's called the Classical Liberal (Lockean) tradition, and believe strongly in freedoms.

They say, for example, that the political Right today holds the general idea that the Left was advocating 20-30 years ago (more or less). They also describe the centist Right as 'cuckservative' and with this underhanded term mean to imply that they are really in service to the left-leaning agenda. You'll have to let me know what you think of this.

Yes, that is said, and sometimes it's even true.

Leftists do the same, only worse. They are famous for holding witch-hunts to purge their membership of those less than fully committed to their latest agenda. For example, the Left just threw out Martina Navratilova for resisting gender-neutral sports, and pilloried J.K. Rowling for failing to put homosexual sex scenes in her books. You couldn't find to more Left-leaning women than those: but the "Progressives" still found a way to make them witches, then scream and hiss at them.

So if conservatives sometimes speak of "cucks," it may be unkind, and sometimes unfair; but it's a lot less harsh than what the Left does with its own dissidents.

[Immanuel Can]

If we don't recover it, and strengthen it, we may be destroyed and may perish. Or is this mis-applied romanticism?

I don't know, really. All I know is that it's "conservative" -- small "c," centrist.

My view is that we know what our ethics are, or should be, and thus we can and should defend them within our sphere. I also believe that 'we' should intervene far less in other people's affairs.

That's nearly small-l libertarian.

...they may continue to exist for a while as 'shadows' but then fade away.

Yes, that's exactly what we're seeing.

[Immanuel Can]

I do remember hearing this song but I did not pay much attention to it (his voice annoys me to some degree but that's just me). I will suppose that you appreciate its message because you can interject into it your sense of the Christian mission? An attitude perhaps that we can and should emulate?

No. I just think it tells a simple truth: that we are not merely material bodies in a material world. The spiritual dimension matters; and there are no solutions until both are properly accounted for. Government won't solve the problem. That's where I'd stop in my brief and hesitant partnership with Gordon Sumner.

I do like to take an 'text' like this and approach it as a 'artifact' so, if you want, I will offer some thoughts.

Feel welcome.