Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 7:32 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 6:51 pm
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:24 pmWhat is revisionist about my position that South Africa was colonised and exploited, and what is the non-revisionist history?
Your view requires a perspective that developed in the Marxian and post-Marxian world.
Absolutely not. My father is a conservative businessman and one of the most unabashed capitalists you'll meet, who has no truck at all with Marxism or socialism in general, yet he was also a vehement opponent of Apartheid.
I am not conversing with or arguing against your father. I am not
recommending apartheid nor that it be reestablished. And I talk about the revolution in South Africa as a 'success' and as a 'gain' for the liberal world order that so strongly (globally) came out against the SA regime and in favor of the negotiated settlement in the early 1990's. What interests me, and what I always write about, is the issue of degeneration that, in my view, arises simultaneously with these *successes*. Philosophically then, and I stated this, I dedicated myself to exploring the other side of the ideological coinage, and I am considering the ideas and arguments of those (like Evola, like Guénon) who oppose the world that has taken form as a result of the revolutions of 1789 and 1848. Guénon wrote
The Crisis of the Modern World and Evola wrote
Revolt Against the Modern World, both of which I've read, both of which have influenced my thought. Additionally, and topically, I draw to your attention that these ideas, and the ideas of many intellectuals who have issues with the modern Liberal Order, have made their influence known and felt in global politics. And I also talk about the fact that we are now in *ideological war* that has now and will have tremendous ramifications.
I am not here as an activist or as an ideological salesman for specific political and social movements or orientations. Yet I notice that you, Harry, and also Seeds, seem to represent quite specific social and political movements that are extremely common today. The tendency on forums like this is that people take up a position behind the barricade of a given position and then engage in the endless bicker-wars. But I find it much more interesting to try to see into our specific 'formations' (what has informed our opinions and ideas and why).
Obviously, and I am sure that you know this, if we are to talk about 'conservative political and social orientations' we would have to trace back the ideas that are held by those who subscribe to those ideas and discover, and uncover, the intellectuals who explain those views. So I might refer to Edmund Burke or to Richard Weaver as sources. Similarly, the Left-Progressives have been informed by other intellectuals with other political and social ideas. Since this is true, and since endless bickering and bitchy back-and-forth never gets anyone anywhere, I recommend the terribly fun pastime of exploring and understanding why we think the things we do, and how we have come to accept the ideas and values that we do accept.
So, I cited three different situations: Israel, South Africa and the United States -- each of which is now and has been a rich vein of hot opinion and extreme disagreement -- as areas that we could explore in a calm manner. But no one of these topics is amenable to a quick analysis. Each is rich with complexity. And to discuss anyone of them requires time, patience and a slow unraveling.
It is true, and I do not conceal it, that at this present moment I do entertain ideas that are condemned and vilified in the present dispensation. In regard to that *dispensation* I will start by saying that I believe that it is a sort-of régime of thinking. It does not ask you to consider the possibility that certain things are true and right, it insists that you believe them
or else. Here then, the entire question of *free thought* and *intellectual freedom* comes to the fore. Do you-plural notice the degree to which ideas are the subject of authoritarian mechanisms of control? I certainly hope so.
So with that said I more or less put the majority of my cards on the table and say that the freedom to explore ideas that are contradictory to those of the present dispensation is my *project*. There is no area that I have not devoted some time and energy to. Not by reading what others say about those who have contrary ideas but by reading primary sources. One primary area, after reading Richard Weaver, was an independent analysis of the War Between the States (American Civil War) and I do go along with the better term The War of Northern Aggression. I do not accept the Party Line. I do not accept then the very foundation of the American (federally mediated) Civil Religion. I do say that this war, and everything that ramified from it, cannot else but be considered as one examines the present political and social situation in the US today. So, as you can well imagine I am immediately placed by my own views in a controversial position. "What does this mean?" someone will ask (and must ask). It has to be explained of course, but note the following: in today's climate it is more common to shut down conversations than to open them up. Do I have to cite references? Shutting down conferences, stopping certain speakers from speaking, banning and censorship, and the vilification of ideas that are not liked and described as *bad* or *evil* is the order of the day.
When I said that the Left-Progressive ideology has its origins in Marxian ideas and tenets, and that when I read your ideas about history and politics I discern those *notes*, I am not criticizing you -- at least not directly. I am noting however how deeply these ideas have penetrated generally. I do not *believe in* rejecting, outright, Marxian analysis. I
believe in try to to trace out its influence. Very different. And simultaneously I believe in taking a critical position in regard to 1789 and 1848. I admit that the ramifications are huge indeed. It is like turning against the entire direction of the world. It requires a clear, solid enunciation of a counter-current that could countervail against the *outcomes* of our present which, with one example, has been defined as an age of
liberal rot. Does liberalism then eventually result in rot? What does 'rot' mean? If there is such a thing as 'rot' what then countervails against it?
As you well know -- having read Weaver -- people have dedicated their lives to coming up with substantial answers to that, and those, questions.
Now in regard to
the kerfuffle as you have charmingly termed it, my suggestion is that you and Seeds should help the Vegetable Taxidemist to
properly sing Kumbaya. Yes, you heard me right! You and Seeds never really sung it right and properly, and I have strong doubts that the Taxidermist ever did even
try to sing it. You must hit
all those notes! Since it refer to *my Lord* I am assuming Immanuel can get on board with this. So a peyote session where you man the didgeridoo (if you are not adept enough bring your Aboriginal neighbor!) and Seeds handles the psychedelic post-Christian chanting is where things need to go now. I'd say it is ordained by
the Time itself or, to put it somewhat better, by
Dasein itself. Let
Dasein therefore enter into the very fibres of your body in a fiery Pentecostal spirit-possession of
sheer conviction! Clear your throats now!
Sing!
