This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think traditionalist aesthetics alone make something reactionary, particular when it is employed to push the envelope forward. The Founding Fathers of America heavily leaned on Classical aesthetics but were not Reactionary. The Futurist movement was associated with Fascism, and even today the Vaporwave aesthetic broadly used across the DR shows the uncanny nostalgia of the combination of classical aesthetics and futurist artistic expression. Within science fiction, fascism seems to aesthetically fit all too well, with Starship Troopers and Star Wars being two of many such cases, also pointing to a futuristic rather than reactionary ideological inertia.
Of course fascism became associated with eugenics and the trope of "science going too far." It was a revolutionary ideology, it is only accused of being Reactionary from the point of reference of left-wing academics who are doing basically what Hlynka is doing by accusing the DR and Wokeism as being cut from the same cloth.
"Fascism" has basically become synonymous in common parlance with Right-wing futurism as opposed to Right-wing conservatism or reaction. "Fascists" aren't "super conservative" they are revolutionary futurists.
Having a vision of the future doesn't disqualify them from being reactionaries, though. It's part of having an effective political machine. Christian millenarians are perfectly capable of holding reactionary beliefs despite having very clear claims about 1) the shape of the future and 2) how everyone ought to get there. So too with the agrarian conservatives whom the Nazis supplanted.
The key feature of reaction is opposition to liberalism. Nazis were very eager to check those boxes. It's that, more than the aesthetics, which I find dispositive.
More options
Context Copy link
Many reactionaries were obviously deeply critical of fascism, but the nuance of their criticism is usually about the approach rather than the goal (building a society with, in generalized terms, traditional values and built around faith, family and fatherland all defined vaguely). All reaction today is revolutionary, even obviously-not-futurist reaction like French traditional Catholicism of the SSPX kind is ‘revolutionary’ in a country that has been secular and progressive for the best part of 250 years (some exceptions excepted). Milquetoast Americana ‘Christian nationalism’ is revolutionary in the modern US.
Fascist aesthetics are interesting but complicated by the huge differences between Italy/Germany/Spain and the fact that even within countries there was a huge amount of inconsistency; the Nazis selectively deployed both modern sans serif futurist fonts and Fraktur until they arbitrarily decided the latter was Jewish in 1941. Architecturally there was always tension between a veneration of classicism and the fact that fascism had its roots in part in architectural modernism/futurism, such that you get complicated and extremely interesting, but also arguably aesthetically incoherent (especially when one looks at interior design and exterior design side by side) buildings like Hitler’s chancery.
I think one of the few points of agreement is that fascism sees the centralized state as playing a much more central role in cultural, economic and political life than other forms of reactionary conservatism (a term that I disagree is oxymoronic, almost all hard rightists today agree that conservatism is revolutionary because there is very little left to conserve). Other reactionaries typically want a smaller state and a larger role for other institutions (religion, social organizations, communal groups and local politics, gender and age-based associations etc).
Fascism never had a Karl Marx figure to consolidate a general philosophy, hence the inconsistency. It is expressed more organically relative to the people and their historical context rather than a monotone global revolution. I still do not agree that harnessing the immense power of classical aesthetics makes you a Reactionary. Talk about confused!
"Democrats are the real racists, please stop DEI because it's the real racism" is not a revolutionary ideology. People like Hlynka have long been appropriated as Enforcers for the prevailing cultural ethos and moral paradigm as one kosher side of the anti-fascist dialectic: the Progressives claim the right is more fascist due to their social conservatism, while the Right claims the left is more fascist because of their cultural and economic authoritarianism. So the prevailing dialectic is defined by the debate over who claims the moral high ground by being the most anti-fascist. Conservatism is highly entrenched in this game, with Hlynka being a quintessential example of many people we all know in real life and which completely dominated right-wing discourse during the Bush era and prior.
Fascism is neither liberal nor pre-liberal. It is post-liberal. That's why any sort of gesture towards a Right-wing post-liberalism is automatically tagged as fascist or Nazi no matter how irrelevant it is to 1930s German National Socialism.
So I feel you are playing into the game here by claiming a Right-wing post-liberalism is impossible. It either must be liberal or reactionary. But this obviously isn't the case. I do not consider myself a reactionary. I do not want to go back to the 1950s, or Retvrn further back than to whatever year Moldbug pegs. The only way out is through, not backwards. I and many on the DR don't associate with NRx for this very reason.
I very much agree, but I don’t think Hlynka was on the hard right, for all of his strange and contradictory ideas. I don’t really think Hlynka was an enforcer for the status quo, just a believer in a strange form of classical Anglo-American liberalism with some additional characteristics that is, today, probably more embodied by the GOP than the left in some ways.
I think I’m mostly in agreement with you (not politically, obviously, but on this point) but I’d still describe myself as a reactionary. I think pretty much anyone who opposes the progress cult is, at least on some level. I don’t want to go back to the 1950s or any particular previous time. I don’t think Moldbug does either; he argues that liberalism traces its roots to the reformation or even renaissance, but he’s not advocating a return to 1400, he doesn’t think it’s possible in any case.
All post-liberal ideologies of the right (as opposed to liberal ideologies of it, like Hlynka’s), for all their diversity, are reactionary. That’s not a criticism, it’s just obvious, because in their rightism they will be, necessarily, reactionary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link