The Anti-Liberal Reader

[Fade the Butcher]

This thread was inspired by Mike Huben's anti-libertarian web page. Use it to suggest books, essays, articles and so on that contain useful critiques of liberalism, libertarianism, individualism, democracy, and capitalism. I will edit the list as suggestions are made.

Aristotle. Politics
--- Nicomachean Ethics
Bellah, Robert (ed.), Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life
Bork, Robert H. Slouching Towards Gomorrah
Bradley, Owen. A Modern Maistre: The Social and Political Thought of Joseph De Maistre
Brighouse, Harry. Justice (Key Concepts)
Burnham, James. Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism
Carlyle, Thomas. On Heroes, Hero Worship, and Heroes in History
--- The Managerial Revolution : What is Happening in the World
Evola, Julius. Men Amongst the Ruins
--- Revolt Against the Modern World
Fleming, Thomas. "Abuse Your Illusions (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/January2002/0102Fleming.htm)"
Gasset, Jose Ortega y. The Revolt of the Masses
Guénon, René . Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times
Hammerton, James A., A Critique of Libertarianism (http://web.archive.org/web/20010407063531/http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/politics/libcrit.txt)
Hegel, G.F.W. Philosophy of Right
Heidegger, Martin. The Question Concerning Technology
--- Basic Writings
Heraclitus. Fragments: The Collected Wisdom of Heraclitus
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf
--- Hitler's Table Talk
Huben, Mike. Critiques of Libertarianism (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html)
Jardine, Murray. The Making and Unmaking of Technological Society
Kymlicka, Will. Contemporary Political Philosophy
LaFollette, Hugh. "Why Libertarianism is Mistaken (http://www.stpt.usf.edu/hhl/papers/Libertar.htm)"
Lasch, Christopher. The Revolt of the Elites: And the Betrayal of Democracy
Locke, Robert. "Marxism of the Right (http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html)"
MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory
--- Whose Justice? Which Rationality?
de Maistre, Joseph. Considerations on France
Mussolini, Benito. Fascism
Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals
--- Beyond Good and Evil
--- Thus Spoke Zarathustra
--- Will To Power
O'Meara, Michael. New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe
Plato. The Republic
--- The Laws
Powell, Anthony. A Dance to the Music of Time collection
Sandel, Michael J. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice
Schmitt, Carl. The Concept of the Political
--- Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty
--- Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy
--- Legality and Legitimacy
--- Political Romanticism
--- The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of Jus Publicum Europaeum
Spengler, Oswald. Decline of the West
Strauss, Leo. Natural Right and History
Sunic, Tomislav. Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right
de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America
Waugh, Evelyn. Brideshead Revisited
Wilson, David Sloan. Darwin's Cathedral
Yockey, Francis Parker. Imperium
--- The Enemy of Europe

[Anarch]

I would add Spengler's Decline of the West, perhaps. Julius Evola's Men Amongst the Ruins and Revolt Against the Modern World are certainly relevant. Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times by Rene Guenon would also qualify, though I haven't read Guenon.

[1-800]

The Revolt of the Masses-Jose Ortega y Gasset
Darwin's Cathedral-David Sloan Wilson

edit:

Fictional works included? If so, then:

Brideshead Revisited-Evelyn Waugh
A Dance to the Music of Time collection-Anthony Powell

[Fade the Butcher]

We forgot Carl Schmitt. I will add him later.

[Basil Fawlty]

We forgot Carl Schmitt. I will add him later.Yes, you couldn't leave him out. And what about Burnham, he should be there too.

[Fade the Butcher]

Added Schmitt, Carlyle, de Maistre, Strauss, Nietzsche, Heidegger and several others.

[Helios Panoptes]

Considerations on France (http://maistre.ath.cx:8000/considerations_on_france.html) by De Maistre, Collected works of Yockey (http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/fpyockey/)

You should add "Man and Technics" by Spengler.

[Petr]

Some hammering of libertarianism from a Christian viewpoint:


http://littlegeneva.com/?p=246#comments


"I want everyone to watch this video that was designed to teach libertarianism to children, and see how anti-Christian it is at almost every turn. It begins: "The philosophy of liberty is based on the principle of self-ownership." The Bible teaches the exact opposite.

...

# Harry Says: December 29th, 2004 at 5:44 am

Here are a couple of the many anti-libertarian Bible verses:

1 Cor. 6:19-20
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

1 Peter 2:15-16
For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men - as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God.

...

"You’re right that, according to libertarian ideology, children have no right to make demands of parents, or vice versa. From a purely economic view, children are liabilities, not assets. The Bible goes on to say that the husband owns the body of the wife, and the wife owns the body of the husband. This is about as anti-libertarian as you can get.

...

[infoterror]

"The philosophy of liberty is based on the principle of self-ownership." The Bible teaches the exact opposite.

I think common sense agrees with the Bible. We didn't create ourselves, and we're dependent upon our environment. "Liberty" is irrational selfishness, and has never been achieved.

[Anarch]

Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Dostoyevsky - Notes from the Underground.

'If God is dead, everything is permitted' - Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

[Hippias]

"The Morality of Everyday Life" by Thomas Fleming.

Excellent book if you haven't read it.

[fieldmouse]

Guénon, René . Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times

I'd substitute this for The Crisis of the Modern World, it's more concise and digestible.

Sunic, Tomislav. Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right

I'm currently reading this and it's fairly superficial and clumsy unfortunately. However, it did alert me to Vilfredo Paredo. A volume of his essays is published as The Other Paredo.

Perhaps add: Gustave Le Bon - The Crowd

[Ravenheart]

Nobilitas: A Study of European Aristocratic Philosophy from Ancient Greece to the Early Twentieth Century by Alexander Jacob
Nobilitas is a study of the history of aristocratic philosophy from ancient Greece to the early twentieth century that aims at providing an alternative to the liberal democratic norms, which are propagated today as the only viable socio-political system for the world community. Jacob reveals that, contrary to popular belief, the social and cultural development of European civilization has, for twenty-five centuries, been based not on democratic or communist notions but, rather on aristocratic and nationalist notions. Beginning with the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, and continuing through Renaissance and Baroque aristocratic philosophers, the German Idealists, and English and Italian nationalists, the study ends with the transformation of aristocratic philosophy in nineteenth century Germany into racist elitism. As such, the study includes a survey of the philosophical bases of racism and anti-Semitism. These topics have been systematically excluded from academic and political debate since the end of the last Great War. This study is a pioneering work in understanding and changing political ideologies.

[Hakluyt]

Ravenheart, have you read the book by Jacob perchance? I actually happened to come across an interview he did with David Duke, which made me a bit leery, but I'd still like to take a look at it. He is an Indian, btw, raised Christian.

[Ravenheart]

Ravenheart, have you read the book by Jacob perchance? I actually happened to come across an interview he did with David Duke, which made me a bit leery, but I'd still like to take a look at it. He is an Indian, btw, raised Christian.

I've read it, yes. It gives a brief overview of aristocratic philosophy (with some sidesteps towards racialism), but doesn't go particularly deep. To be honest, it wasn't as good as I had hoped, but still interesting.

[Rusty Mason]

"The Morality of Everyday Life" by Thomas Fleming.
Excellent book if you haven't read it.

Is that meant to be a joke?

[Hippias]

Is that meant to be a joke?

No, it wasn't a joke.

[Sean]

Jacob reveals that, contrary to popular belief, the social and cultural development of European civilization has, for twenty-five centuries, been based not on democratic or communist notions but, rather on aristocratic and nationalist notions.

Is this author advocating a return to aristocracy? Regardless, I don't buy this. Aristocratic philosophy, just like the philosophy of the masses, is just that: a philosophy--it is simply a different way of looking at things. Within any given society there may be individuals of many different types of outlook, all of which contribute to a greater culture. For instance, Homer is aristocratic in spirit, but Hesiod is a peasant in spirit--what it is that makes each poet special depends on their outlook. (The same comparison can be made with Mozart and Beethovan.) I do believe that there is a European spirit, but it subsumes different class outlooks. What makes the West special is not the content (wherein the noble and peasant ideals are found), but in the form of the outlook: it is the ability to look inward and outward, from whatever perspective.

It is also futile to attempt rebuilding the aristocracy. Today, it is nothing more than a museum piece. The reason for this is that the underlying drive to sustain it is gone--a drive without which it would be just the mere following of lifeless rules, there would be no spirit. Classes are built out of random social circumstances--they are a reaction which constitutes the need for their worldview. Culture can only be sincere and genuine if it arises out of such a reaction. It must be built out of what we have, not out of what we don't have.

[Damavand]

bush jr. is in office for one reason - he belongs to a wealthy and powerful family. he isn't in office because of real "liberal democracy" (someone tell me where this exists!). he wouldn't be in office were it not for his family ties. even his rival kerry is a cousin from the same fraternity! less honest aristocracy is still aristocracy. aristocratic and nepotistic patterns continue throughout the world, more or less honest depending on society.

[IlluSionS667]

Why aren't there any books by Alain De Benoist in there?

[Brechun]

www.thereligionofpeace.com

Can convert the most hardcore of liberals to having atleast some alleigance for the west.

[Tellurocrat]

Alain de Benoist & Masson, Digu est-il Mort en Occident?
Alain de Benoist, ed., Vu de droite
Alain de Benoist, L’Éclipse du Sacré
Alain de Benoist, Pour une Renaissance Culturelle
Aldous L. Huxley, Brave New World
Alexis de Tocqueville (4 vols), Democracy in America
Arnold Gehlen, Der Mensch: Seine Natur und seine Stellung in der Welt
Arnold Gehlen, Die Seele im technischen Zeitalter
Arnold Gehlen, Moral und Hypermoral: Eine pluralistische Ethik
Arnold Gehlen, Urmensch und Spätkultur: Philosophische Ergebnisse und Aussagen
Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism
Christopher Lasch, The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics
Crawford Brough Macpherson, The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy
Crawford Brough Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism
Ernst Jünger, Bees of Glass
Ernst Jünger, The Worker
Gaetano Mosca, The Ruling Class
Gareth Davies, From Opportunity to Entitlement: The Transformation and Decline of Great Society Liberalism
Gottfried Dietze, America’s Political Dilemma: From Limited to Unlimited Democracy
Gottfried Dietze, American Democracy: Aspects of Practical Liberalism
John P. McCormick, Carl Schmitt’s Critique of Liberalism
Paul Gottfried, After Liberalism
Paul Gottfried, Carl Schmitt: Politics and Theory
Pierre Manent, An Intellectual History of Liberalism
Robert Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf)
Robert P. George, ed. Natural Law, Liberalism, and Morality
Vilfredo Pareto, Les Systèmes Socialistes
Vilfredo Pareto, Mind and Society

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

G.K. Chesterton "What's Wrong with the World"; Pierre Bordieu "The State Nobility"; Slavoj Zizek "Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?"; Alasdair MacIntyre "Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry"; Alain Badiou "Metapolitics"; George Dangerfield "The Strange Death of Liberal England".

[Autoreduction]

"The Ego And It's Own" by Max Stirner

[Geist]

Heidegger, Martin. The Question Concerning Technology
--- Basic Writings

Most of the ideas contained in this essay are borrowed from Ernst Jünger. Heidegger merely failed, as he often did, to admit the influence of another thinker on his ideas.


Heraclitus. Fragments: The Collected Wisdom of Heraclitus


I have no idea how one could come to consider Heraclitus an anti-Liberal thinker, or even concerned all that much to politics. Unless you are thinking of the concept of war [strife] as a fundamental principle.

Some other recommendations relating to Heidegger might be useful here:

Philosophical and Political Writings. Edited by Manfred Stassen, New York, Continuum, 2003.

Specifically the essays:

The Self-Assertion of the German University (1933)
Why Do I Stay in the Provinces? (1934)
The Question of Being (Letter to Ernest Jünger 'Concerning "The Line"' (1955)
Being-in-the-World as Being-with and Being a Self: The 'They' (1927) [Also, of course, in Being and Time].
Understanding, Interpretation, Discourse, Language, Idle Talk (1927) [Same as above].
...Poetically Man Dwells... (1951)

Also contains a better translation of 'The Question Concerning Technology' than that available in the Basic Writings collection.

In terms of thinking [denken] as a way of overcoming metaphysics:

Basic Questions of Philosophy. Selected "Problems" of "Logic". Translated by Richard Rojcewicz and Andre Schuwer, Indiana University Press, 1994.

Discourse On Thinking. Translated by John M. Anderson and E. Hans Freund, New York, Harper & Row, 1966.

[Basil Fawlty]

Most of the ideas contained in this essay are borrowed from Ernst Jünger. Heidegger merely failed, as he often did, to admit the influence of another thinker on his ideas.Now that's quite a claim that would need a bit of back up to say the least.
I have no idea how one could come to consider Heraclitus an anti-Liberal thinker, or even concerned all that much to politics. He thought that most people were asleep, he was right! I would say just about anything written in antiiquity would be anti-liberal although the very suggestion one way or the other is anachronistic, liberalism being the product of the 17th century AD.

[Boleslaw]

We forgot Carl Schmitt. I will add him later.

Recently I glanced over his Concept of the Political. Overly pedantic if you asked me. I doubt I'll ever read anything by him again!

[Boleslaw]

Hilaire Belloc - The Servile State.

Jacques Maritain - Man and the State.

More to come as they come to mind.

[Angler]

Anti-liberalism (in the sense of modern liberalism) I can understand. Anti-libertarianism I cannot -- with the exception of certain more radical ideas that can be considered fringe even within the libertarian community.

Mike Huben's anti-libertarian web page is full of poor arguments that amount to little more than "might makes right" -- "since the government can hamper your rights, those rights are little more than privileges." Hmmm, okay. Well, I guess that means I have a right to murder or rape anyone I want to just because I have the power to do so, eh? If I'm willing to go on a suicide mission with one of my assault rifles tonight and kill as many people as possible before I'm killed, then by Huben's logic I have every right to do so since I have the ability to do so, and the government cannot stop me in time.

Libertarianism is based on self-ownership, and self-ownership is common sense. It reflects the natural state of men -- at least men of any intelligence and self-respect who will not be made into other men's dogs. Since no human being can own another in any real sense, no human being can have the inherent right to rule over another. All legitimate government is based on consent of the governed. It's just that simple.

The right to use force extends no further than (1) the defense of life, liberty, and property; and, arguably, (2) to ensure compliance with laws that guarantee the functioning of society in such a manner that rights can be protected.

If someone thinks that he or anyone else has the right to tell me not to engage in activities that harm no one, then I want to know where he got that right.

Screw the law when it's wrong, and screw the state when it oversteps its bounds! Real men think for themselves and will not let the whims of the mindless masses or their puppeteers dictate their actions to them. The real man would rather die than live under the boot of the state, which is composed of other mortals like himself -- and often mediocre mortals, at that.

[Boleslaw]

I have some libertarian sympathies, however I tend to prefer the concept of self-government over libertarianism per se.

[Boleslaw]

I surprised nobody has mentioned Russell Kirk, his writings are a goldmine of anti-Liberalism.

One of my favorites of his is Redeeming the Times.

[Roland]

I have no idea how one could come to consider Heraclitus an anti-Liberal thinker, or even concerned all that much to politics
Liberalism, as a product of the enlightenment, inherited the hubris associated with the secularized divinity of objective, disinterested knowledge. Contra this divinity, Heraclitus argued that the human obsession with knowing "things" was an obsession with illusion, and that being necessarily conceals itself from human knowledge. I do agree with you, however, that Heraclitus is barely political, aside, perhaps, from his condemnation of the Dionysian cults.

Recently I glanced over his Concept of the Political. Overly pedantic if you asked me. I doubt I'll ever read anything by him again!
I suggest another try as Schmitt was, if not the greatest political theorists/scientist of the 20th century, at least the last great Catholic political thinker. As for the comment about pedantry, this is probably a result of your unfamiliarity with continental juridical writing. Schmitt was first and foremost a jurist with philosophical/political influences; his writing is therefore, for the most part, dry and analytic; however, other books that he wrote for the general public, such as Land and Sea, and The Idea of Representation are far more colloquial.

Libertarianism is based on self-ownership, and self-ownership is common sense. It reflects the natural state of men -- at least men of any intelligence and self-respect who will not be made into other men's dogs. Since no human being can own another in any real sense, no human being can have the inherent right to rule over another. All legitimate government is based on consent of the governed. It's just that simple.
1) Explain this natural state of men wherein all consciously embrace self-ownership? Please cite concrete historical examples.
2) How can no human being not own another in any real sense? Slavery, serfdom, and wage-slavery disprove this premise.
3) All legitimate government is based on the absence of revolutionary discontent amongst the people, not from tacit or explicit consent.

The right to use force extends no further than (1) the defense of life, liberty, and property; and, arguably, (2) to ensure compliance with laws that guarantee the functioning of society in such a manner that rights can be protected.

If someone thinks that he or anyone else has the right to tell me not to engage in activities that harm no one, then I want to know where he got that right.

I would like to know where you got your right to use force as well.

Screw the law when it's wrong, and screw the state when it oversteps its bounds! Real men think for themselves and will not let the whims of the mindless masses or their puppeteers dictate their actions to them. The real man would rather die than live under the boot of the state, which is composed of other mortals like himself -- and often mediocre mortals, at that.

Unless of course these real men explicitly decided to alienate their agency to a protective state apparatus, as is the case throughout the vast majority of civilized and rational human history.

[Angler]

1) Explain this natural state of men wherein all consciously embrace self-ownership? Please cite concrete historical examples.I didn't say all men consciously embrace self-ownership; I said that self-ownership is a commonsensical concept. And it is. If I don't own myself, then who does? And on what grounds? Why do they own me rather than the other way around?

2) How can no human being not own another in any real sense? Slavery, serfdom, and wage-slavery disprove this premise.Having power over someone does not mean that you own them. Not in my book, anyway. Ownership implies legitimacy. A thief may steal property, but once he has it in his possession and has gotten away with his crime, he still doesn't own the property; his possession of that property is illegitimate. It's the same way with people.

On the other hand, if a slave or serf feels that his condition is acceptable, and he's unmasculine enough to accept servitude and ownership by another, then perhaps he really is "owned."

3) All legitimate government is based on the absence of revolutionary discontent amongst the people, not from tacit or explicit consent.No, because even if a people are discontent to the point of wishing for revolution, they may not have the means (e.g., weapons) to overthrow their government.

I would like to know where you got your right to use force as well.My moral instincts tell me that I have the right to use force to defend myself or others against unwarranted assault. I do not, however, have the right to use force to victimize or control innocent people.

If such a basic right doesn't exist -- indeed, if NO rights exist -- then we fall back to the position of "might makes right," in which case no one has any rights. A child doesn't even have the right not to be sexually molested in such a model. Laws do not create rights, since laws are not self-enforcing, and many can be easily broken even in the most repressive regimes.

Rights are real, but they are psychological concepts that I believe exist by virtue of a complicated interaction between evolved social instincts and social influences. This is related to a materialistic concept of morality that I've discussed in other threads. To me, concepts such "morality" and "rights" exist in human minds in the same way that fear, love, and other emotions/instincts do.

Unless of course these real men explicitly decided to alienate their agency to a protective state apparatus, as is the case throughout the vast majority of civilized and rational human history.Placing complete trust on a state protective apparatus is both cowardly and irrational, since the state apparatus itself can turn (and often has turned) on the citizens at any time. The true man lives for himself, his family, his principles, and any other loyalties he has freely chosen. Anyone who serves a master unquestioningly is not fit to live at all, in my opinion.

[Roland]

I didn't say all men consciously embrace self-ownership; I said that self-ownership is a commonsensical concept. And it is. If I don't own myself, then who does? And on what grounds? Why do they own me rather than the other way around?

If self-ownership is a commonsensical concept, then common sense has been eschewed by the vast majority of humans throughout history, and is therefore not common sense.

Having power over someone does not mean that you own them. Not in my book, anyway. Ownership implies legitimacy. A thief may steal property, but once he has it in his possession and has gotten away with his crime, he still doesn't own the property; his possession of that property is illegitimate. It's the same way with people.

You are begging the question here. What exactly legitimizes "property"? What makes my body my property, but not another body my property?

On the other hand, if a slave or serf feels that his condition is acceptable, and he's unmasculine enough to accept servitude and ownership by another, then perhaps he really is "owned."

Therefore, people can and have been property.

No, because even if a people are discontent to the point of wishing for revolution, they may not have the means (e.g., weapons) to overthrow their government.

By revolutionary discontent, I meant to imply the possible overthrow of the government. For the vast majority of history, pitchforks, shovels, or maybe the family hunting rifle were enough for the overthrow of the government. In contemporary civilization, it is perhaps more difficult, but not much more difficult. Whether or not civilians are armed makes little difference as the military is armed, and is an organization comprised of civilians.

My moral instincts tell me that I have the right to use force to defend myself or others against unwarranted assault. I do not, however, have the right to use force to victimize or control innocent people.

What happens when your mere existence becomes a forceful affront to my well being? Perhaps your nihilistic, romantic individualism is eroding the moral edifice of my community, which provides security for many people. Perhaps I deem your ideology an unwarranted assault against myself and decide that I must use force to control you.

What constitutes unwarranted assault? Is the definition only confined to property and direct physical violence? If so, you must define property, and then show that libertarian individualism is part of natural moral instinct.

If such a basic right doesn't exist -- indeed, if NO rights exist -- then we fall back to the position of "might makes right," in which case no one has any rights.

I don't understand what you are saying here. If your right to self-defense doesn't exist, then no rights exist? This is an invalid argument.

If you are saying that if no rights exist, then might makes right, I agree.

A child doesn't even have the right not to be sexually molested in such a model. Laws do not create rights, since laws are not self-enforcing, and many can be easily broken even in the most repressive regimes.

Laws don't create rights, but rather sovereignty and tradition do. Do you think telling a child that he or she has the right to self-defense will prevent sexual abuse? Of course not, that is why there are organizational devices, such as the state, which exist to protect individual human beings from others.

Rights are real, but they are psychological concepts that I believe exist by virtue of a complicated interaction between evolved social instincts and social influences. This is related to a materialistic concept of morality that I've discussed in other threads. To me, concepts such "morality" and "rights" exist in human minds in the same way that fear, love, and other emotions/instincts do.

If you could re-explain your natural morality here, or point to a thread, it would be helpful. I can't really comment on this.

Placing complete trust on a state protective apparatus is both cowardly and irrational, since the state apparatus itself can turn (and often has turned) on the citizens at any time. The true man lives for himself, his family, his principles, and any other loyalties he has freely chosen.

Except a freely chosen state apparatus? The rest of your argument is emotional.

[Boleslaw]

I suggest another try as Schmitt was, if not the greatest political theorists/scientist of the 20th century, at least the last great Catholic political thinker.

I'm highly skeptical of that claim. The honour of the last great Catholic political thinker should probably go to Jacques Maritain, who was the last great Catholic thinker period!

I'll take Maritain's Man and the State (http://www.amazon.com/Man-State-Jacques-Maritain/dp/0813209056) over Schmitt's Concept of the Political anyday of the week.

Also if I remember correctly, Schmitt was not that serious a Catholic at all.


As for the comment about pedantry, this is probably a result of your unfamiliarity with continental juridical writing.

The simple truth is I was not impressed by what he had to say. And I stand by that position.

In fact I really shouldn't be surprised by this; since I have little patience for any of the major figures of the German Conservative Revolution.

[Geist]

Now that's quite a claim that would need a bit of back up to say the least.

I'll need to do so over the weekend when I get home. I would not have believed it myself if not for Zimmermann's insightful book 'Heidegger's Confrontation with Modernity'.

He thought that most people were asleep, he was right! I would say just about anything written in antiiquity would be anti-liberal although the very suggestion one way or the other is anachronistic, liberalism being the product of the 17th century AD.

Well in that sense our anti-liberalism reader could essentially encompass the entire corpus of the literature of antiquity! Perhaps not such a bad thing.

[Geist]

Liberalism, as a product of the enlightenment, inherited the hubris associated with the secularized divinity of objective, disinterested knowledge. Contra this divinity, Heraclitus argued that the human obsession with knowing "things" was an obsession with illusion, and that being necessarily conceals itself from human knowledge. I do agree with you, however, that Heraclitus is barely political, aside, perhaps, from his condemnation of the Dionysian cults.


I agree with most of these points. I cannot recall offhand the fragmants, but would 'being' not also reveal itself through logos or the 'measure'? Although it is perhaps a different kind of understanding it would suggest that being both reveals some aspects whilst concealing its 'essence'. It is interesting that for Heraclitus, and for the Pre-Socratics in general, the seperation of beings and being did not exist as such. The illusion is almost mapped on to 'being' by humanities drive toward objectification. Perhaps my discussion with regard essence is itself evidence of this!

[Roland]

I'm highly skeptical of that claim. The honour of the last great Catholic political thinker should probably go to Jacques Maritain, who was the last great Catholic thinker period!

I'll take Maritain's Man and the State (http://www.amazon.com/Man-State-Jacques-Maritain/dp/0813209056) over Schmitt's Concept of the Political anyday of the week.

Also if I remember correctly, Schmitt was not that serious a Catholic at all.

Schmitt was more than a serious Catholic up until the publication of the Concept of the Political. All of his numerous publications up until 1929 are Catholic in nature. The Concept is his most relativistic work, though, which was pointed out by his student Leo Strauss.

Schmitt was a political realist, and therefore viewed the Catholic Church as an entity above politics - a guiding hand, whose only interests were peace and humanity. Though Schmitt abandoned this view between 1929 and 1936 due to the fact that the Catholic Church, at least in Germany, had become nothing more than another special interest group, he returned to his support of the Catholic Church later.

In his works on geopolitics and international Law, Schmitt explicitly defends the theological world order promulgated by medieval Catholicism, as well as modern Catholicism. Though he defends these world orders in so far as they are politically coherent.

I overstepped the boundaries of Schmitt's influence, perhaps with regard to Catholicism, but I think he should nevertheless be classified as a Catholic thinker.

I'll give Maritain a try, thanks for the link.

The simple truth is I was not impressed by what he had to say. And I stand by that position.

You might enjoy Political Theology or The Idea of Representation more than the Concept.

In fact I really shouldn't be surprised by this; since I have little patience for any of the major figures of the German Conservative Revolution.

This is a misclassification of Schmitt as a political entity. He was first and foremost a political scientist - that is, a disinterested observer - however, when he noticed that Germany was on the verge of collapse, he entered into politics, first supporting the Catholic center party, and then joining the Nazi Party after the fall of the Republic. Schmitt was not a revolutionary in any sense of the word; indeed, he published two books and countless articles admonishing the president to outlaw and disband both the Nazi party and the Communist party. His conservatism was so radical that he submitted to any legitimate state that he lived under, including the 3rd Reich.

I agree with most of these points. I cannot recall offhand the fragmants, but would 'being' not also reveal itself through logos or the 'measure'? Although it is perhaps a different kind of understanding it would suggest that being both reveals some aspects whilst concealing its 'essence'. It is interesting that for Heraclitus, and for the Pre-Socratics in general, the seperation of beings and being did not exist as such. The illusion is almost mapped on to 'being' by humanities drive toward objectification. Perhaps my discussion with regard essence is itself evidence of this!

"Some...try in vain with empty talk to separate the essence of things and say how each thing truly is"

"Mindfulness of all things is the ground of being..."

Honestly, I've only interpreted Heraclitus as anti-liberal because of his skepticism of essentialism, and his belief in the harmony of opposites - i.e., that we need injustice to define the limits of justice etc. Heraclitus does evince a thoroughly positivistic point of view in other aphorisms, for instance, when he explains that the seat of judgment would be the nose if everything were turned into smoke.

I've never studied the heterodox, Heideggerian readings of the pre-Socratics.
Could you recommend a good starting text? I've heard What is Metaphysics is sufficient.

[Geist]

In relation to Ernst Jünger and Martin Heidegger:

Both Heidegger and Junger agreed that the industrial transformation of the Earth was merely the empirical manifestation of a hidden, world-transforming power which took the form of the Gestalt of the worker in Junger [that is the latest manifestation of Nietzsche's cosmic Will to Power].
This mirrors Heidegger's conception of history in which the Will to Power represents the culmination or final stage or productionist metaphysics. This is, of course, in Heidegger the 'history of being'.

Heidegger noted that most of his work on technology was written in dialogue with Junger's work The Worker: Dominion and Gestalt which famously Heidegger urged Junger to reprint when it had fallen out of print.

The most obvious example is Junger's notion of Dasein as existing in the clearing of historical epochs or 'zones' of which humanity has no control. He is appropiated by it. I don't think we even need to outline how similar that is to Heidegger's understanding of that-which-regions, the event of appropiation, Dasein as temporal-linguistic clearing etc.

Two examples of Heidegger noted his appropiation of Junger and the influence his work had upon him:

From The Question of Being:
'The Question Concerning Technology owes an enduring advancement to the description of Der Arbeiter.'

From The Rectorate 1933/4: Facts and Thoughts:
'In the year 1930 Ernst Jünger's article on 'total mobilization' had appeared; in this article the basic features of his book Der Arbeiter, which appeared in 1932, announced themsevles...Thinking from these writings and, still more essentially, from their foundation[my italics]...'

He also takes on board the notion in Junger that technology cannot be understood in social, political or economic terms but in terms of an empircal manifestation that transforms the causual-material realm. That is the essence of technology is not technology. That is the central point of Heidegger's famous essay on technology.

There is also the idea in Junger that humanity comes to be dominated by instrumental reasoning. This, of course, is borrowed heavily by the later Heidegger in which technology disloses the relation to being in purely ratio-technological terms.

Beingness [Heidegger] and Gestalt [Junger] are both not entities, and both are considered ontological fields that disclose and gather etc.

I am not suggesting Heidegger stole his ideas. I noted that he borrowed, and that Junger was aware of this. Maybe saying he failed to admit the influence is too strong, but there is no mention of Junger in the QCT yet the essay is essentially an attempt to, in his own words, 'confront' the conclusion of Junger.

[Geist]

Honestly, I've only interpreted Heraclitus as anti-liberal because of his skepticism of essentialism, and his belief in the harmony of opposites - i.e., that we need injustice to define the limits of justice etc. Heraclitus does evince a thoroughly positivistic point of view in other aphorisms, for instance, when he explains that the seat of judgment would be the nose if everything were turned into smoke.

I can see this actually. My only problem would be mapping something onto his fragmants that is not there. But if we are admitting it is the ideas we are drawing upon then we should be fine.

I've never studied the heterodox, Heideggerian readings of the pre-Socratics.
Could you recommend a good starting text? I've heard What is Metaphysics is sufficient.

This is actually my own understanding of Heraclitus as taken from the fragmants as translated by Kirk and Ravan [I have basic ancient Greek, and work on it daily. Tough stuff.]. Heidegger's interpetation is almost always tied into his conception of history etc. He can be a bit loose with regard the Pre-Spcratics!

All the same he has an amazing seminar based solely on Heraclitus. Its a fascinating example of interpetative reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Heraclitus-Seminar-SPEP-Martin-Heidegger/dp/0810110679

[Roland]

This is actually my own understanding of Heraclitus as taken from the fragmants as translated by Kirk and Ravan [I have basic ancient Greek, and work on it daily. Tough stuff.]. Heidegger's interpetation is almost always tied into his conception of history etc. He can be a bit loose with regard the Pre-Spcratics!

All the same he has an amazing seminar based solely on Heraclitus. Its a fascinating example of interpetative reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Heraclitus-Seminar-SPEP-Martin-Heidegger/dp/0810110679
Thanks for the recommendation. With regard to reading in Greek, that seems to be only the first step in really trying to comprehend the meaning of Greek philosophy. Understanding what the words meant in terms of their historical context is probably far more difficult - perhaps impossible.

Good luck with the Greek! I was cowardly and opted for Latin.

[Autoreduction]

Anti-liberalism (in the sense of modern liberalism) I can understand. Anti-libertarianism I cannot -- with the exception of certain more radical ideas that can be considered fringe even within the libertarian community.

Mike Huben's anti-libertarian web page is full of poor arguments that amount to little more than "might makes right" -- "since the government can hamper your rights, those rights are little more than privileges." Hmmm, okay. Well, I guess that means I have a right to murder or rape anyone I want to just because I have the power to do so, eh? If I'm willing to go on a suicide mission with one of my assault rifles tonight and kill as many people as possible before I'm killed, then by Huben's logic I have every right to do so since I have the ability to do so, and the government cannot stop me in time.

Libertarianism is based on self-ownership, and self-ownership is common sense. It reflects the natural state of men -- at least men of any intelligence and self-respect who will not be made into other men's dogs. Since no human being can own another in any real sense, no human being can have the inherent right to rule over another. All legitimate government is based on consent of the governed. It's just that simple.

The right to use force extends no further than (1) the defense of life, liberty, and property; and, arguably, (2) to ensure compliance with laws that guarantee the functioning of society in such a manner that rights can be protected.

If someone thinks that he or anyone else has the right to tell me not to engage in activities that harm no one, then I want to know where he got that right.

Screw the law when it's wrong, and screw the state when it oversteps its bounds! Real men think for themselves and will not let the whims of the mindless masses or their puppeteers dictate their actions to them. The real man would rather die than live under the boot of the state, which is composed of other mortals like himself -- and often mediocre mortals, at that.
I am throughly "anti-libertarian" in that I oppose anything liberalism. "libertarianism" in it's modern american sense is merely another face of liberalism with no deeper understanding whatsoever, it's simplistic and empty. Rights? What rights? Name one right that is inalieble and please explain why. And what pray tell does "own in a real sense" mean? Is that blatant diealism I hear? How does one own one in a "false" sense then? Ah, thge natural state of men who are self-owned is to be self-owned, is that what you are trying to say? Because that really means very little you know. And please point me to anyone who truly owns himself at all the time. And you wouldn't mind defining ownership while you're at it. Yes, all legitamite goverment is based on the will of the goverment, what ahs that got to do with anything you have said thus far? And these "laws" you have set up for yourself? Why should anyone follow them? ih, right because the dfense of these laws is legal, by their own accord, to be done with violence that is otherwise mostly illegal.

Yes..that makes sense. So?

Oh yes all those "real men". Too bad your system only applies to some fantasy idealised "real men" who seemingly don't need your rules as they should be able to govern themself as the fanstasy figures..I mean "real men" they are.

[Geist]

Thanks for the recommendation. With regard to reading in Greek, that seems to be only the first step in really trying to comprehend the meaning of Greek philosophy. Understanding what the words meant in terms of their historical context is probably far more difficult - perhaps impossible.

Good luck with the Greek! I was cowardly and opted for Latin.

Indeed. It may take me years before I can read a Pre-Socratic text, but I am enjoying the simple fruits of translating at the moment. Its just nice to be able to do it. Interpretation comes later sadly :(

[cyborg]

Cult of the Individual (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/prozak/individualism/)

The individual, destabilized, demands that itself come before all else. For this reason it demands an order that supports the cult of the individual; a crowd of uniques, a mob of iconoclasts, an army of freestylers. We refer to "individualism" as the philosophy which (a) puts the individual above all else and (b) interprets all else through its impact on an individual considered alone and isolated from all other factors.

The individual wants first of all recognition: the individual wants to be told that whatever its physical or mental failings, it is just as important as any other individual and just as likely to succeed. The individual wants to be judged on its personality, not physical factors like strength, intelligence, health or ability -- and yes, these are physical factors, since they are determined by the brain and body in design. You can educate a moron but he will still be a moron. You can exercise a cripple but he will still be a cripple. So the individual wants to be judged -- well, they don't want to be judged at all, but since it's inevitable -- they want to be judged by their personality and their hairstyle and their possessions: all things they can regulate.

Clearing the Modern Mind (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/psychology/)

The modern mind is fundamentally divorced not only from reality as a state, but as a motive. In its delusional state, the brain frenetically confirms its own hypotheses because it cannot compare them to reality and thus determine how fit they are as solutions. For this reason it has nothing to consider but its initial assumptions, which it soon begins to defend vigorously. As a result, any ideas that contradict these are seen not as ideas but as acts of aggression against it, and the bearers of the modern mindset lash out at them.

It is for this reason that thinkers attempting to escape the modern have hit on a new hypothesis: our worldview is broken, not our methods. Most systems until this point have tried to regulate method, by changing economic or political systems, or trying to re-educate our language or visual preferences. While these efforts have each changed some traits of our societies, they have not changed the basic trend, which remains consistent. For this reason, liberalism has failed; conservatism has failed; even reformers have failed. Politics cannot save us, nor can economics, nor can military might. We must rethink our psychology.

Putting Race in Context (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/prozak/race/)

Our modern world is a form of hell. It is hell because it does not reward any kind of fine or beautiful behavior, only a gutless functionalism. If it makes money, or pleases the masses, it's great; if not, it is forgotten and cast aside. All of what our ancestors worked for, and indeed any intelligent person through history would work for, is disregarded. Intelligence and accuracy come secondary to popularity and marketability. Simplify, simplify. Everyone in the room must get the joke. The result is that intelligent people are prisoners of a time out of control.

Further, it is a death march. I am not referring to some specific "disaster" like global warming or cancer or class warfare. I am referring to the tendency of this entire system to dumb itself down, and then, having killed meaning, to lament meaning. It is a suicidal, morose and neurotic existence, and these always self-destruct. Unfortunately for the good people among us, it is also creeping up on us like aging does. It did not make a single brave assault. It has gradually increased over the years to the point where we are used to it, and then it gains another dimension. It makes us live like servants and deny any of the most meaningful things - fidelity, achievement, heroism, spirit - in favor of the most mundane, namely not offending others.

Postmorality (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/postmorality/)

If there is one thing humanity needs to hear right now, it is this: "Grow up!" However, this is not the form of maturity of which is commonly spoken, by which they mean a certain docility and resignation that allows one to call a job and servitude to social prestige a meaningful life. The usage here refers to the ultimate maturity, which is an ability to accept reality in all of its positive and negative dimensions, and resolve to act upon it as is necessary.

We could call this ultimate maturity "realism," because when all the semantic arguments are brushed aside, and all the ontological concerns shown to be aspects of the same question, we realize that most of human discourse centers on objects of perception without stopping, first, to form a comprehensive system. Since there is no explanation for our world as a whole, what replaces logic is an ability to analyze details intently, without ever discovering the interconnection between data.

This basic failing is akin to us as humans selecting to believe only that which originates in a human mind, and to relegate reality - the interaction of beings, natural forces, and objects in our physical real-time world - to second-class status. Whether we pick materialism or dualism, both extremes serve us badly by taking our attention away from an observation of life and pointing it toward arbitrary linguistic problems that do not necessarily related to reality.

As such, realism is the king of all scientific outlooks, and herein is its paradox: although we all live in the same world, not all have the fineness of perceptual analysis to understand realism. Most people not only "would prefer to" cling to stolid absolutes that require no interpretation or context to be applied, but also cannot conceive of any other form of belief system. It is only in our recent (400 years) mania for new customers to not offend that we have made the presumption that all people, if "given the same advantages," can understand the same complex thoughts.

Extremism (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/prozak/extremism/)

(With this last essay, we can see how anti-liberalism is not simply a struggle for free-association or against political correctness. The stakes are higher. Liberalism is in many ways a death cult that kills natural beauty/excellence and eventually, all life.)

[Columnist]

Some hammering of libertarianism from a Christian viewpoint:




"You’re right that, according to libertarian ideology, children have no right to make demands of parents, or vice versa. From a purely economic view, children are liabilities, not assets. The Bible goes on to say that the husband owns the body of the wife, and the wife owns the body of the husband. This is about as anti-libertarian as you can get.

...
[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

In other words, there is a tension between economic and social conservatism.
But, Biblical society developed in a time there wasn't a nightwatch state protecting your property. You needed a lot of strong sons to protect your cattle, and possibly filching someone else's.