1:02:23 That was Fascism. Certainly there was an element which was past-utopian as you described, but Fascism in theory and practice was this balance and resolution of past, present, and future. Hitler himself harshly criticized pagan revivalists. The Fascist movements were normal, sensible, and centrist in character, thinking of past and future, while Marxism, communism, and capitalism are a complete divergence that desires to rip man from history. Of course in truth they are just tools to harm targeted historic peoples for the benefit of anglo-judaic masonic-esque interests, but I digress.
Yes the history and the philosophy involved are not too complicated — the defining people are Cicero and then Grotius and especially Herder/Kant
I’ve done a few recordings on the topic that you might find helpful for clarification. I’ll get them uploaded to my account here soon because most people are entirely unfamiliar with the revolution of thought that took place, especially because of how embedded and casual the term “culture” has become since the mid-18th century, culminating in Kant’s making of the word a philosophical concept for politics in the conclusion of his first Critique
Give a reply when they are accessible, if you would. It's quite the claim to make that the concept of culture is not traditional and also to claim we are wrong to use it as a conceptual frame. That's not something that can be glossed over if I am understanding you correctly.
The term “culture” always contained the genitive when applied to men, meaning it was always only the cultivation of a particular soul (begun by Cicero regarding the learning of philosophy)
It was not until the mid-18th century that it ever was used without the genitive and applied to an entire people. This occurs most importantly in Herder where he does it specifically to emphasize what we call “relativism.”
Only with Kant does the term “culture” become a philosophical concept — specifically it is said to be the political telos of metaphysics. That’s how it was mainstreamed into our vocabulary
But what is the significance of that? Greeks and Romans already talked of philia, flesh-and-blood fraternity, and that the indispensable condition necessary to ensure a people's sovereignty resides in its unity. Regardless of that, I do not see the issue with how our side uses the term which aligns with historic sentiments which meant as much. What exactly is the negative aspect being smuggled in that you take issue with?
I can only see the attempt by our ops to dissociate culture from ethnicity and cause conceptual confusion, but that does not seem to be a significant issue in this particular case. Anyone worth talking to will readily admit that culture is downstream from ethnic realities.
So you’re saying you don’t see the problem with relativism being the precondition of the late Modern birth of the term “culture”?
This is by no means an issue of semantics.
You simply seem to insist on wanting to use the term with wholesale disregard for its precondition of *no* hierarchy among any people. I mean, I guess so be it then and continue using the word to categorize exactly what you do *not* want the term to mean
Since when do we use it in a way which deflates hierarchy or suggests absurd relativisms? I don't get how that is baked into the term. If that was how it was once used, which must have been ridiculous in its own time, I have at least never been under that impression in my own time.
I am not understanding the issue. Is it it's usage by our ops? I'm fine with the idea of a better term which distances itself from those who dissociate this collective essence from objective realities which they wish to minimize, but I'm still not sure that's the issue you're taking with the term and concept or if it's something else. What term better refers to this collective essence while not possibly, and wrongly, suggesting relativism?
It was much earlier than that and not understood as anything like fascism
The mid-18th century Germans explicitly understood their efforts as needed for revitalizing a declining “culture” in which they believed traditional Christianity was simply no longer believable
Were the thrust of thinkers in that time truly anti-Christian or more so trying to ensure a Christianity twisted by the enlightenment and budding industrialization did not undermine their nation?
I believe that a people can recognize themselves as made distinct from others by their history and particular national destiny without it becoming idolatrous, and that they must or they will lose their Faith and history both, not to mention their future. This we have been witness to.
It was a mix of both: Many were strong supporters of Christianity and seeking to accomplish what they considered a salvaging of it (eg Novalis, Kant, and then Hegel), while others were vehemently anti-Christian (eg Winkelmann, Herder, Hölderlin, Schiller, sometime Goethe, Schelling, and Fichte)
I did find that ridiculous too; the idea that "culture" is a modern construct without precedent and the traditional conception was citizenship, as if to suggest civic nationalists were the real radical traditionalists all along. Surely this deserves some clarification that firmly places the traditional meaning of citizenship at odds with its contemporary form.
Greetings, friend. I’ve been on Substack for a few weeks now, and I’ve really enjoyed seeing your posts appear in my feed.
I thought I’d take a moment to say hello, and share one of my recent pieces, exploring an empire you’ve likely never heard of before:
https://open.substack.com/pub/jordannuttall/p/the-origins-of-tartaria?r=4f55i2&utm_medium=ios
1:02:23 That was Fascism. Certainly there was an element which was past-utopian as you described, but Fascism in theory and practice was this balance and resolution of past, present, and future. Hitler himself harshly criticized pagan revivalists. The Fascist movements were normal, sensible, and centrist in character, thinking of past and future, while Marxism, communism, and capitalism are a complete divergence that desires to rip man from history. Of course in truth they are just tools to harm targeted historic peoples for the benefit of anglo-judaic masonic-esque interests, but I digress.
Yes the history and the philosophy involved are not too complicated — the defining people are Cicero and then Grotius and especially Herder/Kant
I’ve done a few recordings on the topic that you might find helpful for clarification. I’ll get them uploaded to my account here soon because most people are entirely unfamiliar with the revolution of thought that took place, especially because of how embedded and casual the term “culture” has become since the mid-18th century, culminating in Kant’s making of the word a philosophical concept for politics in the conclusion of his first Critique
Looking forward to those.
Give a reply when they are accessible, if you would. It's quite the claim to make that the concept of culture is not traditional and also to claim we are wrong to use it as a conceptual frame. That's not something that can be glossed over if I am understanding you correctly.
Happily:
The term “culture” always contained the genitive when applied to men, meaning it was always only the cultivation of a particular soul (begun by Cicero regarding the learning of philosophy)
It was not until the mid-18th century that it ever was used without the genitive and applied to an entire people. This occurs most importantly in Herder where he does it specifically to emphasize what we call “relativism.”
Only with Kant does the term “culture” become a philosophical concept — specifically it is said to be the political telos of metaphysics. That’s how it was mainstreamed into our vocabulary
But what is the significance of that? Greeks and Romans already talked of philia, flesh-and-blood fraternity, and that the indispensable condition necessary to ensure a people's sovereignty resides in its unity. Regardless of that, I do not see the issue with how our side uses the term which aligns with historic sentiments which meant as much. What exactly is the negative aspect being smuggled in that you take issue with?
I can only see the attempt by our ops to dissociate culture from ethnicity and cause conceptual confusion, but that does not seem to be a significant issue in this particular case. Anyone worth talking to will readily admit that culture is downstream from ethnic realities.
So you’re saying you don’t see the problem with relativism being the precondition of the late Modern birth of the term “culture”?
This is by no means an issue of semantics.
You simply seem to insist on wanting to use the term with wholesale disregard for its precondition of *no* hierarchy among any people. I mean, I guess so be it then and continue using the word to categorize exactly what you do *not* want the term to mean
Since when do we use it in a way which deflates hierarchy or suggests absurd relativisms? I don't get how that is baked into the term. If that was how it was once used, which must have been ridiculous in its own time, I have at least never been under that impression in my own time.
I am not understanding the issue. Is it it's usage by our ops? I'm fine with the idea of a better term which distances itself from those who dissociate this collective essence from objective realities which they wish to minimize, but I'm still not sure that's the issue you're taking with the term and concept or if it's something else. What term better refers to this collective essence while not possibly, and wrongly, suggesting relativism?
It was much earlier than that and not understood as anything like fascism
The mid-18th century Germans explicitly understood their efforts as needed for revitalizing a declining “culture” in which they believed traditional Christianity was simply no longer believable
Were the thrust of thinkers in that time truly anti-Christian or more so trying to ensure a Christianity twisted by the enlightenment and budding industrialization did not undermine their nation?
I believe that a people can recognize themselves as made distinct from others by their history and particular national destiny without it becoming idolatrous, and that they must or they will lose their Faith and history both, not to mention their future. This we have been witness to.
It was a mix of both: Many were strong supporters of Christianity and seeking to accomplish what they considered a salvaging of it (eg Novalis, Kant, and then Hegel), while others were vehemently anti-Christian (eg Winkelmann, Herder, Hölderlin, Schiller, sometime Goethe, Schelling, and Fichte)
I did find that ridiculous too; the idea that "culture" is a modern construct without precedent and the traditional conception was citizenship, as if to suggest civic nationalists were the real radical traditionalists all along. Surely this deserves some clarification that firmly places the traditional meaning of citizenship at odds with its contemporary form.