4 ms·

I'm not sure I would class de Maistre as a "Christian nationalist", certainly not if we are opening that term up to Protestants. The authority of the Church is

I'm not sure I would class de Maistre as a "Christian nationalist", certainly not if we are opening that term up to Protestants. The authority of the Church is essential to the whole of his theopolitical conception. I was introduced to de Maistre years ago in my reading of Berlin. While I appreciate Berlin for having shared his name and thought to a generation of people who otherwise never would have heard of him, nowadays his reading of de Maistre appears to me to obscure his meaning. Interesting about Pound; I was entirely unaware that he had read de Maistre, but I definitely see the connection. I would certainly hesitate to class de Maistre as "proto-fascistic". Fascism was always opposed to the Church and held to an all-encompassing view of the state, and the Church hierarchy is not simply an alternative form that "the state" takes in de Maistre. However, I can see how it would make sense to class de Maistre in such a way if one represents political thought strictly within the dimensions of "libertarian/authoritarian" etc. [For myself, the key dimension in politics is "modern" (in the sense of an obedience to what is immediate in the senses)/"traditional" (in the sense of an obedience to what is received mediately). There are, of course, many subsidiary dimensions that are important to consider, but from an aerial view it seems to boil down to this primary axis.]

082349872349872 4y ago
mod/trad makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification — with just the bare link it was not at all clear what was supposed to be of interest! > I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong, and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid. —GKC (and the US context is just plain odd — some of the most vocal backers of "The Constitution is Divinely Inspired" dogma are not even protestant christian: they are Mormon)
- Connor_Creegan 4y ago
  I just shared it here because it because it is a good excerpt from one of his most important essays and the editor gave it the fantastic (and nowadays clickbait-y) title of 'Human and Divine Nomenclature'. I was just flipping through this volume because I found it referenced on de Maistre's wiki page, and figured I would share it somewhere (I don't use any conventional social media). To the issue of American "civic" nationalism: I must say I have always been perplexed by the phenomenon, but it is perhaps most unsurprising to witness among Mormons. Quite like the framing of the Constitution, the LDS is undoubtedly freemasonic in its origins, and many Mormons are themselves heritage Americans. There's also that whole BYU-CIA recruitment thing.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    I went on to try "War, Peace, and Social Order", and was reminded of the Verhoeven version of Starship Troopers. And as to the necessity of serfdom in Russia; with hindsight I know it only lasted a couple of decades past Мёртвые души... Are there other parts of the essay I should try reading?
    - Connor_Creegan 4y ago
      [dead]
      - aebtebeten 4y ago
        Thanks very much for the comparative pair; le français, ça joue so I think I'll try https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57137914/f22.item.r=Essai%20sur%20le%20principe%20générateur%20des%20constitutions%20politiques https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57137914/f22.item.r=E... first. (in the english context, I think both William and Henry might contest the "without violence on the one part"?) Looking through a mod/trad prism, there probably is little to justify the separation. I think it was Simone Weil who pointed out that in germany, finding the fascists and the communists working together on occasion against the establishment was not necessarily as surprising as it might seem to intellectuals, for both thought they were thoroughly modern, "on the right side of history" as it were, and on this point they differed only in each thinking their own side would be the one to ultimately replace the "traditional" (in their eyes) globalist capitalist world. [Edit: Looking at Proverbs 8, I would say the me in "By me kings reign" is wisdom, as distinct from the all-powerful]
        Connor_Creegan 4y ago
        >in the english context... Not a bad source of counter-argumentation. >Looking through a mod/trad prism... Perhaps I should clarify my use of the dimension of "modern"/"traditional" - my intention was not that politics ought to be understood through the lens of those who are against and in favor of the present establishment. It is instead an epistemological distinction: do the certainties which motivate my actions originate in my immediate sensibility and in abstract arguments, or in relationships and in the thoroughly-mediated historicity of my surroundings? What is intended in my use of "modern" is closer to the original sense of "modo" - "at-present", etc. The same goes for my use of "traditional" - I don't mean "old" or "established" as much as I mean "transmitted" or "perennial". The contest between liberalism, communism, and the axis ideologies that culminated in the second World War was one between different versions of modernism, and different visions of a post-war world. You are definitely correct in your observation about the collaboration between NatSocs and communists, though I'm not sure they would have regarded the forces of international capital as "traditional". Status quo certainly, but I imagine, since their thinking was deeply-infected by the ideas of Rousseau and Hobbes (and Marx of course), that they, like most traditionalists, would at least assent to the proposition that capitalism is more fat than meat as far as the transmission of intergenerational wisdom goes. The reasons for doing so might differ among all parties involved, but their is at least an assent to the proposition taken at face value.

082349872349872 4y ago

mod/trad makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification — with just the bare link it was not at all clear what was supposed to be of interest! > I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong, and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid. —GKC (and the US context is just plain odd — some of the most vocal backers of "The Constitution is Divinely Inspired" dogma are not even protestant christian: they are Mormon)

Connor_Creegan 4y ago
I just shared it here because it because it is a good excerpt from one of his most important essays and the editor gave it the fantastic (and nowadays clickbait-y) title of 'Human and Divine Nomenclature'. I was just flipping through this volume because I found it referenced on de Maistre's wiki page, and figured I would share it somewhere (I don't use any conventional social media). To the issue of American "civic" nationalism: I must say I have always been perplexed by the phenomenon, but it is perhaps most unsurprising to witness among Mormons. Quite like the framing of the Constitution, the LDS is undoubtedly freemasonic in its origins, and many Mormons are themselves heritage Americans. There's also that whole BYU-CIA recruitment thing.
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  I went on to try "War, Peace, and Social Order", and was reminded of the Verhoeven version of Starship Troopers. And as to the necessity of serfdom in Russia; with hindsight I know it only lasted a couple of decades past Мёртвые души... Are there other parts of the essay I should try reading?
  - Connor_Creegan 4y ago
    [dead]
    - aebtebeten 4y ago
      Thanks very much for the comparative pair; le français, ça joue so I think I'll try https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57137914/f22.item.r=Essai%20sur%20le%20principe%20générateur%20des%20constitutions%20politiques https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57137914/f22.item.r=E... first. (in the english context, I think both William and Henry might contest the "without violence on the one part"?) Looking through a mod/trad prism, there probably is little to justify the separation. I think it was Simone Weil who pointed out that in germany, finding the fascists and the communists working together on occasion against the establishment was not necessarily as surprising as it might seem to intellectuals, for both thought they were thoroughly modern, "on the right side of history" as it were, and on this point they differed only in each thinking their own side would be the one to ultimately replace the "traditional" (in their eyes) globalist capitalist world. [Edit: Looking at Proverbs 8, I would say the me in "By me kings reign" is wisdom, as distinct from the all-powerful]
      - Connor_Creegan 4y ago
        >in the english context... Not a bad source of counter-argumentation. >Looking through a mod/trad prism... Perhaps I should clarify my use of the dimension of "modern"/"traditional" - my intention was not that politics ought to be understood through the lens of those who are against and in favor of the present establishment. It is instead an epistemological distinction: do the certainties which motivate my actions originate in my immediate sensibility and in abstract arguments, or in relationships and in the thoroughly-mediated historicity of my surroundings? What is intended in my use of "modern" is closer to the original sense of "modo" - "at-present", etc. The same goes for my use of "traditional" - I don't mean "old" or "established" as much as I mean "transmitted" or "perennial". The contest between liberalism, communism, and the axis ideologies that culminated in the second World War was one between different versions of modernism, and different visions of a post-war world. You are definitely correct in your observation about the collaboration between NatSocs and communists, though I'm not sure they would have regarded the forces of international capital as "traditional". Status quo certainly, but I imagine, since their thinking was deeply-infected by the ideas of Rousseau and Hobbes (and Marx of course), that they, like most traditionalists, would at least assent to the proposition that capitalism is more fat than meat as far as the transmission of intergenerational wisdom goes. The reasons for doing so might differ among all parties involved, but their is at least an assent to the proposition taken at face value.