Christianity

[Gary Childress]

I see. I've never heard the word used outside of music before. Still not sure what "riffing off the word exchange" means.

Forget about it Gary. I don’t think you are interested in communication on the topics of my last few posts to you.

I have no qualms with discussing whatever you want. I'm just not sure where in your numerous posts to pick up the conversation. I'll look over some of your prior posts and respond when I have more time.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Renaud Camus is a French writer, political theorist and intellectual. Born in 1946 in Chamalières, Auvergne, after being politically active as a Socialist in the ’60s and ’70s and establishing himself as an influential novelist especially in the gay community (mostly thanks to his 1979 autobiographical novel Tricks), Camus went on to publish several works of political philosophy. He holds a bachelor’s degree in French literature at the Sorbonne and a Master in philosophy at the Paris Institute of Political Studies, as well as two Masters in political science and history of law. He has also taught French literature in the US.

To most in the West however, Camus is known for coining the term “The Great Replacement” in his 2011 work Le Grand Remplacement. The book was never translated into English, but the term has since been the subject of intense controversy and frequent references in Western media. Most recently, it has resurfaced in public discourse thanks initially to a New York Times‘ special and subsequently a media campaign against mainstream Republicans (and the Right more in general), following the mass shooting at Buffalo, New York, on Saturday, May 14.

In an effort to reach a deeper understanding of Mr. Camus’ work beyond the Western media’s superficial depiction of it, we decided to reach out for an exclusive interview. What follows, is a written exchange between Renaud Camus and Benjamin Braddock.

Here

[Gary Childress]

Renaud Camus is a French writer, political theorist and intellectual. Born in 1946 in Chamalières, Auvergne, after being politically active as a Socialist in the ’60s and ’70s and establishing himself as an influential novelist especially in the gay community (mostly thanks to his 1979 autobiographical novel Tricks), Camus went on to publish several works of political philosophy. He holds a bachelor’s degree in French literature at the Sorbonne and a Master in philosophy at the Paris Institute of Political Studies, as well as two Masters in political science and history of law. He has also taught French literature in the US.

To most in the West however, Camus is known for coining the term “The Great Replacement” in his 2011 work Le Grand Remplacement. The book was never translated into English, but the term has since been the subject of intense controversy and frequent references in Western media. Most recently, it has resurfaced in public discourse thanks initially to a New York Times‘ special and subsequently a media campaign against mainstream Republicans (and the Right more in general), following the mass shooting at Buffalo, New York, on Saturday, May 14.

In an effort to reach a deeper understanding of Mr. Camus’ work beyond the Western media’s superficial depiction of it, we decided to reach out for an exclusive interview. What follows, is a written exchange between Renaud Camus and Benjamin Braddock.

Here

Does the "great replacement" have to do (more or less) with Jews taking over society? I'm afraid some of these terms you use are new to me.

[Harbal]

Your interposed term was ‘conspiracy theory’. It is not a term I would use. It is a term that has become defunct.

You are interposing that term as a tactic to avoid considering the reasoned position of those, like Renaud Camus, and others.

That is your prerogative. I do not recommend shutting down any investigation of an social issue through that means.

Your decision to do that surprises me.

If the claims of this Camus fellow have substance, why are the various intelligence agencies of the West not doing anything about it?

Genuine question, btw.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Does the "great replacement" have to do (more or less) with Jews taking over society? I'm afraid some of these terms you use are new to me.

Review the article I submitted. Examine Renaud Camus’ views on their own. That is, if understanding his ideas is important.

The issue about Jews among the Right, the Radical Right, and the Dissident Right is unquestionably complex.

There are some who associate Jewish liberalism with Jews sponsoring or advocating for multiculturalism. Thus for loosening controls on immigration. It is not an easy topic to get a handle on.

You can understand Camus’ position by glossing the article.

[FlashDangerpants]

Does the "great replacement" have to do (more or less) with Jews taking over society? I'm afraid some of these terms you use are new to me.

At source (France), no. When the American white supremacists are marching around Charlottesville shouting "the jews will not replace us", yes. Most of that sort of theory blame the jews sooner or later, it's one of those things that unites these groups so it can only ever be deffered.

But the original author mostly just references an "elite" without being very specific about who comprises it and he is amazingly popular therefore among far right European jews.

[phyllo]

Renaud Camus:
She [Marine Le Pen] is also convinced that in France all French citizens are French, which is of course a complete illusion — if they were French they would not call the French “the French”…  

Le Pen draws the line at citizenship. That becomes the standard of the in-group.

But these extreme individuals and organizations don't follow that principle.

Which is problematic : citizenship does not protect you from unfair treatment, persecution or remigration.

Frenchness or any other in-ness is arbitrarily decided. Given and taken away by any whim.

And that's why they have to be resisted.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Frenchness or any other in-ness is arbitrarily decided. Given and taken away by any whim.

And that's why they have to be resisted.

Glad that you examined the article.

Your statement about Frenchness as ‘arbitrary’ and an “is-ness” is an idea, an assertion, and a sort of lie (i mean only a strong non-truth) that I discern that the idea and view you hold is what must be resisted. Personally, I am involved in countermanding it. On numerous levels.

But you came to it, or it to you, through a causal chain. A generation or two ago *your own people* could never have seen themselves in that way. They would have needed to invalidate themselves.

Your view (I say this politely so don’t misconstrue) seems to me a symptom of a disease. A very modern one. A very European one.

Disassociation with ‘self’. Again, it has a causal history.

Le Pen draws the line at citizenship. That becomes the standard of the in-group.

Yet a minor examination of the question of peoplehood, ethnicity, historical trajectory, and so much else — in fact — transcends citizenship. The citizenship you seem to be speaking of is a radical’s concoction. A people defined solely as an agreement or a pact (a ‘propositional nation’). But that necessarily entails doing away with, devaluing, negating, myriad other self-identifications. And therefore that seems to become the liberal State’s sole endeavor: ridding the political body of former identifications; reducing people to mere cogs. And cogs that can be replaced. Who controls this? Only the liberal state.

But these extreme individuals and organizations don't follow that principle.

Your position, when examined, is in fact extreme. Hyper-extreme. Yet you assert that you make the definitions. What you label extreme is extreme. It is a game of controlling the power to assign designations. And under it is always a power-equation. A moral bludgeon. For what do you do about those who see differently, believe differently, organize themselves politically differently?

The State is sent after them.

Really, I am not exaggerating. These things are going on.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Double post

[Gary Childress]

Does the "great replacement" have to do (more or less) with Jews taking over society? I'm afraid some of these terms you use are new to me.

Review the article I submitted. Examine Renaud Camus’ views on their own. That is, if understanding his ideas is important.

The issue about Jews among the Right, the Radical Right, and the Dissident Right is unquestionably complex.

There are some who associate Jewish liberalism with Jews sponsoring or advocating for multiculturalism. Thus for loosening controls on immigration. It is not an easy topic to get a handle on.

You can understand Camus’ position by glossing the article.

OK. I read the interview. I don't have much interest in him. I'll pass.

[Alexis Jacobi]

OK. I read the interview. I don't have much interest in him. I'll pass.

No one asked yo to have an interest. The ideas he deals in have spread in Europe. And will continue to spread. Because they are coherent. And they circulate in our country. If anything could be said to be ‘asked’ of you it is only topical awareness. It is tremendously bizarre that no idea he discussed stimulated even a thoughlet. Literally nothing.

To say “I’ll pass” implies that someone offered you an extra dollop of potato salad!

“No thanks, I’ll pass”.

What I learn from this group is lessons in how it came about that a person, a people, an intellectual community, deliberately insulates themselves from seeing and understanding what is going on around them. And why.

You have an amazing luxury. Must be a habit gained from having a TeeVee remote.

Don’t take my musings as offense. I am only trying to learn as much as I can. I speak to a ‘condition’ not to anyone too specific.

[Gary Childress]

OK. I read the interview. I don't have much interest in him. I'll pass.

No one asked yo to have an interest. The ideas he deals in have spread in Europe. And will continue to spread. Because they are coherent. And they circulate in our country. If anything could be said to be ‘asked’ of you it is only topical awareness. It is tremendously bizarre that no idea he discussed stimulated even a thoughlet. Literally nothing.

To say “I’ll pass” implies that someone offered you an extra dollop of potato salad!

“No thanks, I’ll pass”.

What I learn from this group is lessons in how it came about that a person, a people, an intellectual community, deliberately insulates themselves from seeing and understanding what is going on around them. And why.

You have an amazing luxury. Must be a habit gained from having a TeeVee remote.

Don’t take my musings as offense. I am only trying to learn as much as I can. I speak to a ‘condition’ not to anyone too specific.

Sorry to disappoint. I'm sure he's very stimulating to some. I don't find myself particularly impressed by him.

[Gary Childress]

Interestingly I found R. Camus on Wikipedia which didn't paint him a very pretty picture, however, I couldn't find any reference to him on more reputable sites such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[tillingborn]

Wikipedia describes Philosophy Now magazine like this...

As it happens, I know the editors personally and have contributed to the magazine.

Certainly an 'assumption' is made that those who write articles for the magazine have a strong background in philosophy...

That is your assumption.

...indeed it seems to be the case that they devote their life to it.

It seems to you. You really have no grounds for attributing your perceptions to anyone else.

The implication in your paragraph is that this is not the case.

Again, that is your implication, based on your projected perceptions.

It has always seemed to me, and I have said it many times, that taking a *vague* stance against solidly defining ideas, and articulating specific positions, which also involves value-declarations, is not enough. I do not mean to say that she (Lacewing) cannot or should not take whatever position she wishes to, but in relation to ideas, and certainly the Occidental canon and our traditions, it is not enough.

Then you haven't learnt one of the core lessons of "Occidental" philosophy. Alfred North Whitehead was only slightly exaggerating when he described western philosophy as a series of footnotes to Plato. Rather than "taking a *vague* stance against solidly defining ideas", one might take a solid stance against doing so. Most of the Socratic dialogues were critical of characters who felt they had solid definitions - the Socratic method in essence is the challenging of definitions, showing that they have no discrete meaning and are always context dependent. For those not diligent enough to plough through all of Plato's works, he sums up with the myth of Socrates and the Oracle at Delphi; a story that anyone who even pretends to be familiar with western philosophy really should be familiar with. Socrates is wise, precisely because he knows he doesn't know, an idea that you allude to here:

No one thinks independently of 'context'. We all have a relationship to our context.

Quite, and it generally remains true regardless of how much philosophical study one undertakes. However much a student of philosophy hopes to find truth, it will quickly become apparent that the field of philosophy is opinion - some will appeal, some will amuse, some will repel, pretty much in line with what the student believes anyway. What they might learn is how to make a case for their opinions.

So it seems to me important to see and understand how the positions we take, whether actively chosen or simply those we end up with, have a causal history.

This core idea or concern is vital to my general outlook. If the individual cannot structure positions and values, if he cannot understand the evolution of ideas and also of 'attitudes' toward knowledge and value, that person becomes inert in terms of decisiveness, in terms of personal and also social power.

Presumably you agree that you would strengthen your case if you could explain the evolution of that idea.

In my view this is an unethical act. It can be critiqued ethically.

Given the apposite positions and values, any act can be critiqued ethically. What are the positions, values and structure in this instance?

Another aspect of my own views is that when an individual becomes 'inert' and 'powerless' he also is far more easily manipulatable by powers and entities...

If the cure for inertia is study, individuals don't become 'powerless', it is where they start. Your point is that poorly educated people are easier to persuade; I doubt anyone would find that original, much less challenge it.

The individual has to be capable of making value-assessments. The individual must be able to participate in political decisions. Must remain apprised about what is going on. And to think in those terms requires training.

And this is why I am highly critical of what I understand to be Harbal's position (such as it is).

Harbal wrote: It's certainly a condemnation, if not an attack.

What that says is that you are highly critical of Harbal because he clearly is

capable of making value-assessments.

What you mean is that you are highly critical of Harbal because, in your view, he doesn't read enough nor take himself as seriously as you take yourself; the last of which, in my view, is greatly to his credit.

What I notice predominantly on this forum (though I confine myself to this thread) is that many people seem to take critiques personally. This seems absurd to me. The purpose is to see and understand ideas and how they function. And that must require a dispassionate stance.

You are flip-flopping. You have moved away from

No one thinks independently of 'context'. We all have a relationship to our context.

and back to solid definitions that should be viewed dispassionately, at least within what you call the "Occidental canon". Quite frankly I think your confusion is understandable. When you study philosophy, you are studying human beings, which are the most complicated structures we are currently aware of, as you apparently appreciate. The most famous example of a philosopher attempting impartiality is Descartes' 'Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences'. The main lesson from which is that while impartial scepticism can lead you to one existential truth, 'I think, therefore I am', or simply 'There is thinking' for the real pedants, there is nothing you can build on that which is "dispassionate". It was shortly after this revelation that the fracture between philosophy and science became a rift - science became much more explicitly describing what happens, leaving philosophy with why? The why needn't have any bearing on the what, so the why is simply a context our peculiar passions choose. Anyone who understands this, understands the foundation of western philosophy, and while Lacewing and Harbal might not know the full history of that fundamental truth, they clearly apply it better than you.

I'm sure you won't object to any of the above, because while characters, including yourself are cited, it is as you ask

strictly on the level of ideas.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sorry to disappoint. I'm sure he's very stimulating to some. I don't find myself particularly impressed by him.

Disappoint? By no means. You did quite good considering the obstacles.

May I offer you a delicious strudel ‘avec la crème’ as a token of mein appreciation?