Ok, so this is going into mailbag territory (and caveat I am Jewish), but the trigger word "cosmopolitan" dredged up a question that has been slow-cooking in my brain.
So "cosmopolitan" is, in this context, usually an antisemite's code word for Jew, also on the European side of the ocean, no? And "cosmopolitan" has two very American cousins, "latte liberal" and "limousine liberal".
To some extent these terms could also be (and probably are to some extent) Jewish-coded (like Pizzagate), but on the other hand I find myself wondering to what extent antisemitic rhetoric like this is aimed only at actual Jewish people and to what extent these antisemitic tropes in modern conservative discourse are just a continuation of the way European thinkers through the centuries have used antisemitic rhetoric about non-Jews to imply that those non-Jews are polluted in the same way they think Jewish people are. And I can actually extend this further, because writers of many backgrounds in Europe used antisemitic rhetoric against opponents in the same way they used rhetoric that compared their opponents to women or effeminate gay men or people with physical disabilities or pagans or Muslims, all groups who the dominant culture saw as a source of actual physical pollution, along with Jews.
Which leaves me wondering to what extent the purification trope that fascinates the modern right-wing and fascist parties of the Eurosphere (Europe and its white-dominated current/former colonies) is a survivor of the European middle ages with modern trappings . . . and to what extent it is something new.
To throw in an irrelevant crack, I bet the paleos loved them some St. Augustine.
I disagree: it has a _lot_ of that odour, and people who explicitly oppose the Enlightenment—and not just TradCaths—are _proud_ of it, as proud as we are (for likely values of 'we') of less drinking of septic water and of death-in-childbirth.
It's interesting to think about what separates Trump and Reagan and what distinctly makes Trump much more "their type of guy" for the 2024 analogues and acolytes of Sam Francis. I agree there's some kind of difference there, but it's hard to know exactly what it is. Both Trump and Reagan share the celebrity status, the bigoted views, the reliance on humor as a primary means of political communication.
There is no doubt that Reagan was a disappointment to these ideologues, but I kind of feel like this is an ideology which is only capable of disappointment. The national purity they desire, in addition to being monstrous, is also simply impossible to achieve. Even the revolutionary Caesar of their dreams would almost certainly eventually settle into some kind of weaker Thermidore. The questions are only when and how Trump will disappoint them, not if. (And of course, for us we want to know how much blood will be spilled and damage will be done along the way to their inevitable disappointment, but that's the part these guys like, I think.)
Maybe it's just that Reagan was always kind of a consensus builder, and consensus requires some tolerance of diversity and moderation of goals. Trump is structurally not in a position where building consensus would be viable or helpful for his ends. But that may be more about the circumstances than the type of guy he is.
Just on the Mandate for Leadership IX and Project 2025, the Conspirituality podcast ep 187 on Project 2025 is worth a listen. One of the weird side issues is the degree to which the Heritage foundation and that wing of the GOP right has been taken over by TradCaths. The days of the Republican Right as the Wasp Factory are long over, apparently
Also, look up through the chain of thinkers at Claremont, all the way to its major funders. They populated the Trump administration, and were the source of the Flight 93 Election screed, John Eastman, and more.
And then there's Leonard Leo (good ep on him from Julian of Conspirituality pod, but I think may be paywalled) and the Federalist society, who now have 6 out of 9 positions on SCOTUS. I don't have any theory on what it all means at this stage, but it's notable
Thank. I'll look up that pod on Leo. ProPublica and Wapo have both published good research on his background and work. I think both should be readily available.
So many Catholic extremists... Leo packed the SCOTUS. They want to rewrite the 1st Amendment to allow their Church into the government.
Federalism makes a national tyranny very difficult. Perhaps 95% of state force on citizens is imposed by local and state police forces enforcing the great bulk of criminal and regulatory law which is state and municipal.
In 2022, there were 96,857 federal arrests vs about 9 million arrests by state and local police.
I can't see Trump hiring the "United States Police Force" from "Escape from New York."
I can see some fascist states enabled by a federal government, but life in Massachusetts and Washington would continue much the same. But people like Abbott and DeSantis would be allowed to run wild.
I presume or at least assume Francis was aware of and worked off of — that is, extended — the themes, so to speak, of Nixon’s Southern Strategy/Silent Majority initiatives as well as the Powell memo.
The current devolution of our democracy has been a right wing project for decades, at least since the 1960s and I can make a case that it goes back to the 1930s. And for the record, the DNC submitted for the most part to same after the 1988 election.
Oy, I’m still stuck figuring how a Palestinian homeland failed to happen alongside Israel’s founding. I mean, much of it I attribute to the English’s contempt for the people involved. But how one issues the Balfour declaration in 17 and then give Transjordan to the Hashemites in 22 (yes, I know why it happened but I’m stuck at if or why anyone thought it was a good idea) so far remains a mystery…
Egypt's and Jordan's ambitions had something to do with it as well. As a Jew it's easy to see the need for a a Palestinian state given the extent to which noöne else obviously gives a damn about them, though the Authority care only about their own comfort and Hamas care more about capital-'P' Palestine than about actual Palestinians, much as their U.S. Right/theocratic counterparts would gladly countenance (welcome?) the deaths of most Americans for the sake of 'America!'.
There were numerous points at which the correct thing could have been done but at the moment I’m obsessing over that 1917-22 period although I’m more generally interested in the history from Balfour on.
Divide and conquer is a tried-and-true colonial tool. And if you as a colonial or neocolonial state fund a "margin" state to become your foreign policy proxy in the region, well, you get the best of both worlds . . . . Which is not an excuse for anyone's actions, merely an observation about what some of the British Realpolitik must have been.
"I believe all Trump’s power grabs, like January 6, are likely to fail and be farcical, as is the very notion of Trump playing Caesar." Arrivederci Roma
(I said caveat because I worried my comment sounds like I see antisemitism or at least antisemitic tropes everywhere . . . Which I swear and hope I am not doing).
It's very hard to hate the Enlightenment and not become lost in antisemitic tropes. Nietzsche could do it, but Nietzsche was a genius. Maybe Maistre, but he had the advantage of affirmative belief in bell, book, and candle. Sam Francis and Claremont are not nearly as smart as they think they are, and their vision seems negative. They're all a bunch of antisemites in my book, whatever their opinion of Israel.
Ok, so this is going into mailbag territory (and caveat I am Jewish), but the trigger word "cosmopolitan" dredged up a question that has been slow-cooking in my brain.
So "cosmopolitan" is, in this context, usually an antisemite's code word for Jew, also on the European side of the ocean, no? And "cosmopolitan" has two very American cousins, "latte liberal" and "limousine liberal".
To some extent these terms could also be (and probably are to some extent) Jewish-coded (like Pizzagate), but on the other hand I find myself wondering to what extent antisemitic rhetoric like this is aimed only at actual Jewish people and to what extent these antisemitic tropes in modern conservative discourse are just a continuation of the way European thinkers through the centuries have used antisemitic rhetoric about non-Jews to imply that those non-Jews are polluted in the same way they think Jewish people are. And I can actually extend this further, because writers of many backgrounds in Europe used antisemitic rhetoric against opponents in the same way they used rhetoric that compared their opponents to women or effeminate gay men or people with physical disabilities or pagans or Muslims, all groups who the dominant culture saw as a source of actual physical pollution, along with Jews.
Which leaves me wondering to what extent the purification trope that fascinates the modern right-wing and fascist parties of the Eurosphere (Europe and its white-dominated current/former colonies) is a survivor of the European middle ages with modern trappings . . . and to what extent it is something new.
To throw in an irrelevant crack, I bet the paleos loved them some St. Augustine.
No, it definitely had a little bit of that odor
I disagree: it has a _lot_ of that odour, and people who explicitly oppose the Enlightenment—and not just TradCaths—are _proud_ of it, as proud as we are (for likely values of 'we') of less drinking of septic water and of death-in-childbirth.
Tragic and Ironic that so many of his enablers are Jews.
See also distrust of scientists, who to some seem all (pacem Pope* Paul VI) spiritually Semites.
*'Anti-Pope' to some of the Right People.
It's interesting to think about what separates Trump and Reagan and what distinctly makes Trump much more "their type of guy" for the 2024 analogues and acolytes of Sam Francis. I agree there's some kind of difference there, but it's hard to know exactly what it is. Both Trump and Reagan share the celebrity status, the bigoted views, the reliance on humor as a primary means of political communication.
There is no doubt that Reagan was a disappointment to these ideologues, but I kind of feel like this is an ideology which is only capable of disappointment. The national purity they desire, in addition to being monstrous, is also simply impossible to achieve. Even the revolutionary Caesar of their dreams would almost certainly eventually settle into some kind of weaker Thermidore. The questions are only when and how Trump will disappoint them, not if. (And of course, for us we want to know how much blood will be spilled and damage will be done along the way to their inevitable disappointment, but that's the part these guys like, I think.)
Maybe it's just that Reagan was always kind of a consensus builder, and consensus requires some tolerance of diversity and moderation of goals. Trump is structurally not in a position where building consensus would be viable or helpful for his ends. But that may be more about the circumstances than the type of guy he is.
Just on the Mandate for Leadership IX and Project 2025, the Conspirituality podcast ep 187 on Project 2025 is worth a listen. One of the weird side issues is the degree to which the Heritage foundation and that wing of the GOP right has been taken over by TradCaths. The days of the Republican Right as the Wasp Factory are long over, apparently
Also, look up through the chain of thinkers at Claremont, all the way to its major funders. They populated the Trump administration, and were the source of the Flight 93 Election screed, John Eastman, and more.
And then there's Leonard Leo (good ep on him from Julian of Conspirituality pod, but I think may be paywalled) and the Federalist society, who now have 6 out of 9 positions on SCOTUS. I don't have any theory on what it all means at this stage, but it's notable
Thank. I'll look up that pod on Leo. ProPublica and Wapo have both published good research on his background and work. I think both should be readily available.
So many Catholic extremists... Leo packed the SCOTUS. They want to rewrite the 1st Amendment to allow their Church into the government.
Federalism makes a national tyranny very difficult. Perhaps 95% of state force on citizens is imposed by local and state police forces enforcing the great bulk of criminal and regulatory law which is state and municipal.
In 2022, there were 96,857 federal arrests vs about 9 million arrests by state and local police.
I can't see Trump hiring the "United States Police Force" from "Escape from New York."
I can see some fascist states enabled by a federal government, but life in Massachusetts and Washington would continue much the same. But people like Abbott and DeSantis would be allowed to run wild.
I presume or at least assume Francis was aware of and worked off of — that is, extended — the themes, so to speak, of Nixon’s Southern Strategy/Silent Majority initiatives as well as the Powell memo.
The current devolution of our democracy has been a right wing project for decades, at least since the 1960s and I can make a case that it goes back to the 1930s. And for the record, the DNC submitted for the most part to same after the 1988 election.
of course
Read the book to find out more!
Oy, I’m still stuck figuring how a Palestinian homeland failed to happen alongside Israel’s founding. I mean, much of it I attribute to the English’s contempt for the people involved. But how one issues the Balfour declaration in 17 and then give Transjordan to the Hashemites in 22 (yes, I know why it happened but I’m stuck at if or why anyone thought it was a good idea) so far remains a mystery…
Egypt's and Jordan's ambitions had something to do with it as well. As a Jew it's easy to see the need for a a Palestinian state given the extent to which noöne else obviously gives a damn about them, though the Authority care only about their own comfort and Hamas care more about capital-'P' Palestine than about actual Palestinians, much as their U.S. Right/theocratic counterparts would gladly countenance (welcome?) the deaths of most Americans for the sake of 'America!'.
There were numerous points at which the correct thing could have been done but at the moment I’m obsessing over that 1917-22 period although I’m more generally interested in the history from Balfour on.
So many fuck ups that didn’t have to be…
Divide and conquer is a tried-and-true colonial tool. And if you as a colonial or neocolonial state fund a "margin" state to become your foreign policy proxy in the region, well, you get the best of both worlds . . . . Which is not an excuse for anyone's actions, merely an observation about what some of the British Realpolitik must have been.
"I believe all Trump’s power grabs, like January 6, are likely to fail and be farcical, as is the very notion of Trump playing Caesar." Arrivederci Roma
(I said caveat because I worried my comment sounds like I see antisemitism or at least antisemitic tropes everywhere . . . Which I swear and hope I am not doing).
That's because they kind of are everywhere.
It's very hard to hate the Enlightenment and not become lost in antisemitic tropes. Nietzsche could do it, but Nietzsche was a genius. Maybe Maistre, but he had the advantage of affirmative belief in bell, book, and candle. Sam Francis and Claremont are not nearly as smart as they think they are, and their vision seems negative. They're all a bunch of antisemites in my book, whatever their opinion of Israel.