Thinking of the "top ten" follies perpetrated by the Western ruling class during my adult life:
1) Deindustrializing/impoverishing/oxycontifying vast regions of the US out of an entirely ideological commitment to "free trade."
If I may state the obvious: the current level of emotional investment in politics is pathological and a grave symptom of cultural and religious emptiness. The US now has the essential ingredient of totalitarianism: a militant elite for whom politics is everything.
Let me be blunt: anybody who looks at the fiscal and demographic situation of Western countries and does not understand that assisted dying will be aggressively promoted to cull the weaker segments of the population, save money and reallocate health resources is a complete fool.
2) Making most of Western Europe dependent on Russian energy imports, out an entirely ideological rejection of nuclear power etc
3) Trying to extend NATO to the Don basin out of ... only God knows what.
4) Aiding and abetting demographic collapse and a mental health epidemics by embracing even the most pathological outcomes of the 1960s sexual revolution.
5) Corrupting the educational system by pushing universal credentialism and the politicization of education.
Only an American academic could think that Mussolini would think in terms of "White Christian" demographics in 100% white, 95% Catholic Italy of the 1930s.
Not just idiots, but completely US-centric idiots.
6) Creating enormous loads of public debt and implicitly debasing the currency in order to protect a phony financialized economy and vast unchecked monopolies.
7) Wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in useless, grinding conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc
8) Destroying the European unification project by depriving it of any ideal content and making it a tool of techno-bureaucratic control.
9) Splitting the US in two by promoting universal politicization and cultural/economic/racial segregation.
In the wake of the holocaust everybody (understandably ) has focused on Hitler's antisemitism, but in truth much of his popular appeal in the early 1930s was due to his anti-Bolshevism (or actually, at that point, anti-Stalinism).
A sad paradox: in most cases, the "de-canonization" of the US university curriculum (elimination of the European classics etc), far from making students more able to understand other cultures has made them 100% captives of the American mental universe.
@MattPolProf
Perhaps because I am a European I do not find it striking at all. People in Western Europe (even in Germany) who were terrified by the Soviet revolution vastly outnumbered those whose primary motivation was antisemitism. I still remember my grandfather telling me stories about
The most meaningless political moniker is "progressive" because it implies that there is a well-defined, unequivocal definition of "progress" and people divide for or against it.
In reality it amounts to the arrogant refusal to give a rational account of one's priorities.
The Afghan story confirms my prediction that a society run by "experts" (credentialed people with "technical" training but no philosophical grasp of human realities) is destined to die of incompetence.
Weird how today the moral posture of many secular people resembles Nietzsche's caricature of Christianity: the highest moral status is that of a victim, and the source of most moral claims is resentment.
Once you give up on the "transcendentals" (especially truth and beauty) the teaching of the humanities simply cannot be justified. From this perspective, politicization in academia is both a desperate attempt to stay relevant, and the last stage before death.
A thing I noticed about the most clueless NPR types is that they often come out of "deep America" and their life had a cathartic moment when they went to college and broke off from the backward ways of their little town, reaching cosmopolitan (they think) enlightenment.
The height of totalitarianism is when politics not only invades every aspect of social life, but is the only source of morality and culture. One then meets people who would vanish in thin air without their politics. It's no surprise they cannot live with disagreement.
If you teach people that they are entitled to "rights" in an ontological vacuum (without any reference to human nature, or a metaphysical order), naturally they will start making them up, and they will become more and more imaginary.
The onslaught of imaginary liberals talking about imaginary Fascism reminds me that the biggest challenge we face as a civilization is probably extreme collective detachment from reality.
People worry about cancel culture as a form of totalitarianism.
They should worry more about the fact that so many leaders of important cultural institutions are either incapable of critical thinking or unprincipled or cowards (because otherwise cancel culture could never work)
@MattPolProf
the Red November of 1919, when his father's generation came back from the front and was scarred forever because the Communist waited at the train stations to kill the army officers in order to prepare the way for the great revolutionary catharsis that was coming from the East.
In the wake of the holocaust everybody (understandably ) has focused on Hitler's antisemitism, but in truth much of his popular appeal in the early 1930s was due to his anti-Bolshevism (or actually, at that point, anti-Stalinism).
For future historians: in early 2022 large sectors of US journalism and politics seemed strangely eager to start WW3, in part because all the history they knew was a simplistic ideological narrative about WW2 and its aftermath.
Some beautiful coastal watchtower.
Between 1500 and 1800 as many as one million men, women and children were kidnapped to be sold on the North African slave markets.
A group of progressive New Yorkers in in Times Square protesting in all seriousness the resignation of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, from Selma, AL, can only be interpreted as an apocalyptic sign.
The Western intellectual class is still pretty clueless about the civilizational effects of radical secularization.
Mostly because they are used to think of Christianity as a source of morality, but they have little idea about its historical impact on rationality.
Apparently there was a turning point sometime in US history when this country decided not to build towns. It still built millions of new buildings, but not towns.
There is a deep philosophical truth expressed in the fact (which I have observed many times, both in Italy and in the US) that the children of 1970s Marxist intellectuals tend to be conviction-free hyper-bourgeois elitists.
I don't think one can run "medieval" institutions (hospitals, universities) as business/bureaucratic enterprises without slowly destroying them, because they rely entirely on certain gratuitous human relationships (doctor-patient, teacher-student) that cannot be bought/managed.
Historically Fascism was born as a revolutionary movement that rejected Marxist historical materialism (the link between the revolution and the necessary logic of history) while keeping the dialectical aspect (man as creator, politics as true religion, the primacy of praxis).
I was never a fan of Ibram Kendi, but the fact that he scammed Soros, Dorsey, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations etc at the tune of 30 million dollars, and then did absolutely nothing in return, is actually a rather impressive achievement in its genre.
In hindsight, the collective decision by many academics in the humanities some decades ago that their disciplines should play a "critical" role (as opposed to being the custodians of a tradition etc) was simply suicidal.
Totalitarianism correctly understood is the complete submission of both reason and morality to politics.
In that sense, the Title IX reform appears to be a perfect expression of a totalitarian mindset.
Shall we call it "fascist"?
I often meet libertarians who think their ideology promotes "limited government."
In truth, of course, individualistic libertarianism enables the unlimited expansion of government, by clearing the social/cultural space of competing authorities/allegiancies.
In today's WSJ there is an article on teaching cursive in grade school. The best part is the juxtaposition of a foolish Professor of Education who wants to get rid of cursive because "it is not useful" and a smart 6th grader who wants to learn it because "it is more beautiful."
Contrary to a misconception which is common in the US, individualism per se is not associated with freedom: an isolated individual is in fact the perfect citizen of a totalitarian state. Rather, freedom is associated with religiosity, the affirmation of what transcends the state.
The constant need post-Christian atheists have for a revolutionary/victim class, which becomes the locus of hope for the future and the source of moral righteousness, is quite amazing.
I have often observed an interesting correlation between believing that the problem of poverty can be solved politically and having no desire to spend time with the poor.
A lady on CNN today said that "talking about heritage" sounds like Hitler.
Hitler of course never spoke nor cared about "heritage," but what is amazing here is the idea that tolerance requires total rootlessness, a complete renunciation of cultural and historical identity.
Italian TV is re-running a series from the 1970s on European history narrated by Fernand Braudel, the great French historian. It seems incredible that such scholars once existed. He certainly could not work at Harvard or Yale in 2024.
Not surprisingly, the evaporation of "society" has produced an artificial political world, in which the dominant concern of the two major political sides is with each other. So, instead of seeking power in order to govern, they mostly govern in view of having power.
@wesyang
As I said before, one can eliminate inherent academic advantages by simply mailing diplomas to whoever asks for one, without wasting time on classes, books etc.
We would get judges of the same caliber as Mr. Seligman at no cost.
When I was younger even the most foolish of the foolish understood that it rights come from the state or from an electoral majority, there are no rights.
The old debate over the origin of right was nature vs god. Some said rights had a basis in nature discoverable by reason (science); others believed divine revelation was necessary. Today, the left’s position is rights are self-created by majorities.
I believe it was Horkheimer who argued decades ago that the decisive 20th century transition was when capitalism understood having masses of single people is more efficient than having families with children.
The weird thing is the so-called left totally embraced that project.
Reading AI literature gives the impression that everybody believes that machines will be capable of "understanding" (conscious, reflected knowledge) because everybody holds the dogmatic belief that humans are machines, and *for no other reason*.
The close observation of mental illness shows how much rationality is a communal phenomenon. A mind closed into itself and cut off from dialogue with other minds can entirely lose contact with reality.
For the annals of ideological backfiring: because of its "green" policies, Germany is now producing 31% of its electricity from coal, up from 8% in 2015. Amazing.
As far as I can tell, the greatest under-reported political scandal in the US is the collapse of inner city public education. The right ignores it because it doesn't care, the left because it is responsible for it.
Allow me to say that the fact that nobody ever cared to have Renzo De Felice's seven-volume biography of Mussolini translated into English is symbolic of the fundamental unseriousness of much of the (liberal and Marxist) English-speaking scholarship on Fascism.
One wonders if after complaining endlessly about the stubborn persistence of racism, sexism, hatred, inequality etc at some point people will start wondering if there is something mysteriously off-kilter about humanity, an original flaw of some sort.
A lot of what passes for humanitarianism today is nihilism in disguise: we love you by letting you do whatever soothes your pain because your life is utterly meaningless anyway.
The current Western ruling classes have perfected the art of ideological distraction like nobody before.
Modern media seem designed to keep people focused on as many fake problems as possible.
I keep coming across a certain type of American or British media type who has absorbed from the environment that "religion is bad" but cannot really articulate why because they are philosophically and historically illiterate.
It must be emphasized that the stunning incompetence of the elites is not the incompetence of the uneducated. It is the incompetence of people whose education has not provided them with any philosophical or religious framework that would make them interested in reality,
TS Eliot's line about people relying on "systems so perfect that nobody needs to be good" comes to mind re. the academic peer-review system, which enables "scholarly communities" of literally hundreds of people to review, publish and praise each other's total intellectual garbage
On one side: unthinking right-wingers who are so unable to analyze the forms of totalitarianism rising today in the West that they hold on to anachronistic descriptors (eg "Communism") like a dog with a bone.
I mean, it did not take a genius to figure out that ditching Western-civ based gen ed would not produce graduates deeply grounded in Chinese or African culture, but merely grotesquely ignorant people.
Been hearing Dem pundits with elite credenitals wonder if the opera at end of RNC (Nessun dorma, the most iconically Italian thing imaginable) was GERMAN, maybe WAGNER.
See, this is why Ivies shouldn't have ditched their Great Books/Art/Music appreciation courses.
The great weakness of today's social elite is having no ideal-religious common ground on which to communicate with the bulk of the people.
This is why it must demonize the opposition and manipulate its supporters with rather grotesque ideologies. Lust for power mixed with fear.
When scandalized by our society's blithe indifference to young people's despair (which kills more of them than covid), remember that the dominant world view today is constitutionally incapable of dealing with existential questions.
Apart from all moral considerations, today's events are a reminder that some people live in a mental universe (structured around honor, revenge, religious/sacrificial immolation, epic rebellion) that has become utterly incomprehensible to post-Christian bourgeois westerners.
I may be wrong, but the quasi-religious anti-racist fervor of the academic-professional-business-media bourgeoisie does not seem to be matched by much interest in concrete policies that could help real disadvantaged POC. It may be a case of "false consciousness."
Right-wingers who think they are smart because they figured out that "everything is political" (or "everything is about power") have just accepted the fundamental philosophical premise of their enemy.
I will repeat that multiple, simultaneous institutional failures are not "bad luck" but signs of a social elite who no longer believes in the ideals that sustained the building of those institutions. What prevents a rebirth is that the "ideal" questions are no longer even asked.
Writers on Fascism in the US usually seem to have no clue about the cultural background of Italian Fascism (revolutionary Socialism, Sorel, Gentile, the embrace of 'militant idealism' by Prezzolini, the reception of Marx and Nietzsche in Italy, the myth of the Risorgimento etc)
In retrospect, the most significant political phenomenon in the West over my life time has been what I like to call self-colonization: the ruling classes trying to maximize social control by systematically cutting off the masses from their cultural/religious past.
A culture that refuses to speak in terms of binding, permanent universal values (implicitly theological) must constantly evoke "psychological" pathologies (racism, bigotry etc) and use them moralistically as a replacement of ethics.
The claim of revolutionary thought over the last few centuries has been that the revolution can change human nature (e.g. eliminate greed, racism etc.) not just social arrangements.
That's why revolutions always end up trying to eliminate a class of people who "cannot change."
The problem is not that fools recklessly try to bring down ancient institutions, but that the people responsible for those institutions have forgotten what they stood for, and thus cannot defend them.
I can hold simultaneously that we should try to prevent psychopaths from getting firearms, and that our society produces psychopaths with an unusual frequency and severity, which can only be explained in cultural/religious terms.
The "Christian" part is especially surreal given Mussolini transparent atheism and anti-clericalism, forged in the revolutionary Socialism of Romagna. If anything, the Fascist Italian Man is the heir of ancient (pagan) Rome.
Only an American academic could think that Mussolini would think in terms of "White Christian" demographics in 100% white, 95% Catholic Italy of the 1930s.
Not just idiots, but completely US-centric idiots.
With all due respect, the great divide between Catholicism and many forms of Protestantism does not concern papal authority or Marian devotions or scripture vs tradition etc, but the fundamentally sacramental nature of Christianity, reflected (or not) in those particular aspects.
There are always some people (especially naive religious types) who fall for the optical illusion that Marxist-type revolutionary movements fight for justice.
They don't. Deep down they always fight to destroy the world as "given" an usher in "another world."
The one narrative that our current ruling classes find absolutely repulsive and unacceptable is that there is any sort of broad social and cultural decline.
That would directly contradict their deepest philosophical convictions.
Centuries from now historians of ideas will laugh at our age's conceit that one can at the same time hold a scientistic-naturalistic view of the world and affirm universal human rights.
If there are no practical needs, the main reason people have children is because of some history they want to continue by handing down a heritage of ideas and values. The modern western bourgeois has no past, and thus it makes perfect sense he/she wants no future.
It is ironic that today political movements that philosophically follow a Marxist template must systematically eschew all consideration of (economic) class.
That shows that the enduring core of Marxism is really a political (atheistic) religion, not a socio-political analysis.
One cannot really get rid of God without getting rid of the transcendentals, which in political terms means disposing of "Platonic" concepts like justice and truth in favor of "vital" notions like liberation, change, empowerment, equity etc
It cannot be emphasized too much that people's religious sense develops in the impact with reality, and atrophizes when people are cut off from experiences that awaken radical questions. Having children, for example.
Some people on Twitter seem to be genuinely offended by the fact that many phenomena result from a combination of factors rather than the one simple explanation they are passionate about.
@BellaRudd1
Personally, I stand on principle: "thou shall not kill." In these matters there is no compromising principles for appealing utilitarian reasons, i.e. no "99% prohibition to kill humans" will ever work.
A classic example of medium-small private colleges that lost their religious-regional-historical identity, conduct national searches to hire corporate-style managers with no real allegiance to the institution, and slowly die while trying hard to be like everybody else.
The prestigious literary journal, The Gettysburg Review, is being shut down by an admin who has been at the host university for all of 3 months. Apparently the journal received a $10M donation just last week. Classic example of expensive admins undercutting university functions
Sometimes it seems the US media are testing to what extent systematic totalitarian mendacity and social control can be achieved within a system that still holds election.
This important insight applies 100% also to higher education: everybody is fixated on giving people "access" to the system with no interest whatsoever in what it actually does.
The problem with Obamacare is the same problem with all lefty politics. All about demand side, aka ‘access,’ zero interest in how the industry operates. A collapsing system isn’t relevant. Same problem as current infrastructure debate vs supply chains.
Solidarity is a vastly superior political concept to equality because it relates directly and realistically to people's needs rather than pursuing an abstract and impersonal general goal.