Very nice post. You wrote, "Revolution is a western thing born during the Enlightenment." Yes! This is exactly true; revolution as commonly understood in the West means revolt against the established order in order to institute an *even more* egalitarian government, which is metaphysically rooted in Pauline Christianity's "the first shall be last and the last shall be first". As Tom Holland states so eloquently:
"Fascism, I think, was the most radical revolutionary movement that Europe has seen since the age of Constantine. Because unlike the French Revolution, unlike and the Russian Revolution, it doesn’t even target institutional Christianity: it targets the moral/ethical fundamentals of Christianity. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution are still preaching the idea that the victim should be raised up from the dust and that the oppressor should be humbled into the dust; it’s still preaching the idea that the first should be last and the last should be first just as Christ has done.
The Nazis do not buy into that. The Nazis buy into the Nietzschean idea that the weak are weak and should be treated as weak, as contemptible, as something to be crushed….
Atheists of today [like Richard Dawkins et al]… they are basically Christians. Nietzsche saw humanists, communists, liberals—people who may define themselves against Christianity—as being absolutely in the fundamentals Christian, and I think he is right about that because I think that in a sense atheism doesn’t repudiate the kind of ethics and the morals and the values of Christianity."
I think it's telling that even after declaring God dead the West continued its missionary activities. In the Colonial Era we erected crosses in subject territory and pushed Christianity on the benighted devil-worshipping populace. Today we fly rainbow flags over our embassies and push LGBTQAIBBQWTF+ on the benighted homophobic populace.
This is the thing about reaction. You tend to become your enemy. The enlightenment, secular, atheist, materialist west, in choosing to topple Christianity, in many ways became the thing they most despised. An inversion of it.
Interesting. I am not sure that I would agree, but it is thought provoking. I would argue that both enlightenment liberalism and fascism are both post-Nietzschean and claim a materialist, atheist core. The resemblances of left morality and framing to Christianity are more superficial than substantive.
🗨 political unity only happens at the expense of the ambitions of its constituents. It is only ever justified by the presence of some even more pressing external need. In the absence of an outside threat, the tendency for all internal suborders is to push apart and cannibalize the political commons for their particular gain.
Social mimics natural ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
🗨 A diversity of powers is necessary for life to survive the inevitable rise and fall of particular powers. Full unification is not only impossible; it would be deeply dangerous to the future of life.
Yes, the external threats do provide incentives to paper over problems. It does become all the more urgent when there are few external enemies for the elites, to maintain their position and dissipate revolutionary pressure, to actively engage in the work of integration. In one sense they seem to be doing this with racial equity, ideologically believing that biggest threat/problem is a lack of racial integration, while ignoring the lack of integration among heartland/working class whites and others.
🗨 For a revolutionary situation to develop, it's not enough the belows would not want to go on living in their former ways. It requires also the aboves could not any longer lord over as accustomed.
Very nice post. You wrote, "Revolution is a western thing born during the Enlightenment." Yes! This is exactly true; revolution as commonly understood in the West means revolt against the established order in order to institute an *even more* egalitarian government, which is metaphysically rooted in Pauline Christianity's "the first shall be last and the last shall be first". As Tom Holland states so eloquently:
"Fascism, I think, was the most radical revolutionary movement that Europe has seen since the age of Constantine. Because unlike the French Revolution, unlike and the Russian Revolution, it doesn’t even target institutional Christianity: it targets the moral/ethical fundamentals of Christianity. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution are still preaching the idea that the victim should be raised up from the dust and that the oppressor should be humbled into the dust; it’s still preaching the idea that the first should be last and the last should be first just as Christ has done.
The Nazis do not buy into that. The Nazis buy into the Nietzschean idea that the weak are weak and should be treated as weak, as contemptible, as something to be crushed….
Atheists of today [like Richard Dawkins et al]… they are basically Christians. Nietzsche saw humanists, communists, liberals—people who may define themselves against Christianity—as being absolutely in the fundamentals Christian, and I think he is right about that because I think that in a sense atheism doesn’t repudiate the kind of ethics and the morals and the values of Christianity."
From: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-egalitarian-ratchet-effect-why
I think it's telling that even after declaring God dead the West continued its missionary activities. In the Colonial Era we erected crosses in subject territory and pushed Christianity on the benighted devil-worshipping populace. Today we fly rainbow flags over our embassies and push LGBTQAIBBQWTF+ on the benighted homophobic populace.
This is the thing about reaction. You tend to become your enemy. The enlightenment, secular, atheist, materialist west, in choosing to topple Christianity, in many ways became the thing they most despised. An inversion of it.
I resemble the bespoke tail of alphabet string! 😁
Interesting. I am not sure that I would agree, but it is thought provoking. I would argue that both enlightenment liberalism and fascism are both post-Nietzschean and claim a materialist, atheist core. The resemblances of left morality and framing to Christianity are more superficial than substantive.
🗨 political unity only happens at the expense of the ambitions of its constituents. It is only ever justified by the presence of some even more pressing external need. In the absence of an outside threat, the tendency for all internal suborders is to push apart and cannibalize the political commons for their particular gain.
Social mimics natural ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
🗨 A diversity of powers is necessary for life to survive the inevitable rise and fall of particular powers. Full unification is not only impossible; it would be deeply dangerous to the future of life.
palladiummag.com/2022/09/08/the-rise-of-the-garden-empires
Yes, the external threats do provide incentives to paper over problems. It does become all the more urgent when there are few external enemies for the elites, to maintain their position and dissipate revolutionary pressure, to actively engage in the work of integration. In one sense they seem to be doing this with racial equity, ideologically believing that biggest threat/problem is a lack of racial integration, while ignoring the lack of integration among heartland/working class whites and others.
Ellul is a closeted Leninist! 😂
🗨 For a revolutionary situation to develop, it's not enough the belows would not want to go on living in their former ways. It requires also the aboves could not any longer lord over as accustomed.
And, yes, Ellul began his intellectual journey as a Marxist. It stayed with him as the touchstone, the theory that had to be dealt with.
A rare French didn't 😉
Yes, there has to be that sense that those in the overclass can be dislodged.