Friday, July 23, 2010

The Dangers of Being Protestant Politicals

I've been posting on Her'cules mostly, of late, so here is a digression.

Fukuyama is still spewing his Hegelian nonsense:

"None of this is meant, of course, to justify the terrible events of the century now passing. But it does demonstrate the truth of de Tocqueville's assertion that even the actions of democracy's enemies seem in the long run to advance the cause of democracy. It also supports Immanuel Kant's view that man's "asocial sociability" -- his propensity for war and violence -- is the crucible of human progress.

So it turns out that the main consequence of the long chain of events occasioned by Gen. von Kluck's defeat, important as those events were for the millions of individuals affected by them, was to affect mostly the timing of the march toward democracy and free markets and not the final objective. This would seem to be evidence for what Hegel called the "cunning of History," or what others would label the hand of God in human affairs"

And sane persons like Paul Gottfried still try to explain patiently:

"Since the director of this website, who is named for the great emperor and king, has asked me to compare the “Habsburger Reichsidee” (the imperial idea) to the neoconservative concept of a global democratic America, I shall begin by underlining the fact that these ideas operate in non-intersecting universes. Such a comparison may be likened to the task of looking for common characteristics in a Shakespearean drama and a Harlequin novel. If overlaps are ascertainable (and they may be from a structural perspective), they are far less significant than the differences to be noted. One chief difference between the concepts in question is that unlike neoconservatism, the “imperial idea” is a Western and European invention that comes out of the aristocratic and bourgeois past. It is rooted in the European civilization that extended from the late Middle Ages down to the early twentieth century; and while imperial rule shows the marks of a certain commendable political development, toward religious tolerance and a market economy, its history is baroque and imperial. It is in the truest sense Burkean, uniting monarchy and aristocracy to a modern liberal order, without damage being done to any of the parts of this civilizational synthesis."

Gottfried has good ideas about what paleocons can be up to these days. No help from the Hegelians is forthcoming or should be accepted, even Republican ones. History does not explain itself.


1 comment:

  1. History is a sham. Incredibly, many Traditionalists are very historicist, and actually somekind of Hegelians; even crypto-neoconservatives or unconscious leftists. There would be no modernity without historicism and no historicism without Modernity. Mondo Moderno indeed.

    "It is in the truest sense Burkean, uniting monarchy and aristocracy to a modern liberal order, without damage being done to any of the parts of this civilizational synthesis."

    Perhaps this is the way to go. I've been looking into Anarcho-Capitalism. Are you familiar with Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn?

    ReplyDelete