Flash's response is really no response at all -- just negation. He dismisses the notion -- one entertained by many people, and that alone is important if only because it is a contemporary issue -- that decline and decadence are
real things. His only *work* here is to quote Popper. And there his commentary ends. He has nothing else to contribute. He ends where he starts from: in emptiness.
Same treatment for Weaver. It is not true that he *tried to resurrect the scholastic arguments about Platonic forms*, so this is another off-handed but vain snipe -- but with no real content or effect.
Weaver in my view provides a framework to understand a very real contrast between those who resort to metaphysical ideas or anchor themselves in them, in contrast to people who have lost connection to those anchors, or no longer understand them, and therefore find themselves adrift without a tangible guidance-system or with one unfortunately unsatisfactory for the task of guidance.
you just want to spout about categories without the ontological commitment to an antique theory
This is not so. Like everyone, and all of us who have been extruded from recent historical processes, I am aware of what *being adrift* means. And because that is so I can explain what my processes have been in relation to that have been. I am unsure what is really and truly *antique* and even what that word is actually intended to mean.
So I dismiss that word as just another attempt at deprecation: which is your actual and sole content. In all that you write. And in the way you manifest yourself.
Weaver is a largely forgotten man probably because of that.
That is definitely not the case. But I am pretty sure he, like all people who work in that realm of ideas, is neglected.
It's not very hard to imagine why anyone would see phrases like that and form some sort of negative opinion. It's quite sinister.
sinister
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
sin·is·ter (sĭn′ĭ-stər)
adj.
1.
a. Suggesting or threatening harm or evil: a sinister smile.
b. Causing or intending harm or evil; wicked: a sinister conspiracy.
2.
a. Portending misfortune or disaster; ominous: sinister storm clouds.
b. Attended by or causing misfortune or disaster.
In your case, with any idea that excites your overheated brain, you project Hitler and Hitlerian evil. And sure that is all sinister imagining. And it is projection that is core to your entire outlook. It contaminates you.
2) Counter-politics as-against Liberal constructs. The theorists of the Right -- who are not read, who are excluded from the academic canon generally -- propose alternatives to the Liberal construct. If someone refers to *Liberal rot* (and some do) then it becomes necessary to define why it has rotted and then to theorize what could eliminate the rot and what ideas and social practices (or political organization) could generate something better (or more in accord with certain *defined values* that are, perhaps, pushed out of the picture in our present).
I explain here why a wide range of theorists notice *rot* and work to describe what it is and how it came about. I may have my own commitments to such a view or understanding but I did not express them in that paragraph. And what I wrote was intended to put some words into Harbal's mouth about why he has that *suspicious* feeling. Neither have I defended any counter-liberal activists. However, I do use the the term *hyper-liberal* in a negative sense. In my view an honest and defensible Liberalism has morphed, through process of decay, into something hyper-liberal and not-so-good (criticizable).
And the point is that there are many many millions of people who form a simple conservative right and all the way up to a Radical or Dissident Right who are seeing and thinking in different ways. And they examine material (generally material excluded from our accepted canon) and this too validates the fairness of the paragraph.
You are talking here about some sort of white separatism right? Jonathan Bowden was a senior member of a white seperatist political party in Britain, and you didn't mention him by accident one assumes? All this talk of castration is a rhetorical attempt to link masculinity to race, correct?
What you have done, and what you always do, is to *reinterpret* what you read and in doing so you rewrite it and present that as what your opponent said. Identity is a fine and necessary topic and is not something evil and unethical. I refer to Bowden because he sees very clearly into the *heart* of people who cower before their own selves; who have internalized that European grammar of Self-intolerance. To have come to understand this mechanism, and the grammar into which we have been indoctrinated, is definitely one of the more important ideas that I personally have worked through.
And the issue of demographics, the concern about national make-up, and the concern about preservation of culture -- no one of these topics is inherently unethical. All topic can be examined and discussed. What you do, always, is to assign a negative label to any idea that excites your crack-brain -- in your case it is Hitler.
You start from this point. Amd you end at that point.
"metaphysical dream of the world"
You do not know, and cannot know, what I *believe in* or don't. And your dismissal of the idea, though you can dismiss anything with any imperious gesture as you desire, means nothing at all.
Maybe the next set of concerns or topics will prove more illuminating.
Nothing can or could *illuminate* you. Because you start from a position of ur-negation. You have constructed your *self* within that vortice. It determines where you are, what you see, how you interpret, and how you act within the realm of ideas.
