Dear Librarian, I didn't know about Constantin's writings until I read this post. He writes wonderfully, man of great culture and poetry. I subscribed.
This all seems roughly on-point. Not sure Samuel Huntington would like sharing a bed with Alexander Dugin. And he might have barely known anything about Heidegger. However, it's worth noting that in a lecture in one of his classes at Harvard shortly before he died, he did observe (sardonically) that Islamic sexual repression was likely the best recruiting tool for young Al Quaeda members, and if they had been encouraged to freely masturbate (perhaps all over each other), none would have joined up. You'd enjoy one of his early graduate students (and a former professor of mine) named James Kurth, who's probably smarter than Huntington and who has long been a scourge of liberalism and a Christian conservative. He is (or was) good buddies with Robby George.
But I'm not sure about the cementing, civilizational role of Christianity in your quasi-fascist new world disorder. Kind of think Christianity is in the rear-view mirror, despite its recent right-wing revival. When we talk about civilizations, we're really talking about cosmologies, of course. Liberalism is weak these days for entropic reasons, not because it is morally derelict. After 250 years, the system has simply run its course. And so its cosmology as the basis for any form of civilizational integrity is now pretty much worthless
But in the battle to come for a hegemonic cosmology, in whatever pole of the world you want to choose, the sciences of complexity, the scaffolding of thermodynamics, and the scaling laws of motion are likely to prevail. The prepolitical and unalterable "values" and "premises" of Christianity will not stand a chance.
Which is why we (by which I mean "you" and your colleagues) should definitely stop beating the dead horse (unless your primary goal is to inflict pain) and give liberalism the dignity of a quiet death. We (by which I mean "you" and your colleages) also should discount any positive contribution that predatory Russia can make to building a durable future. Instead, our focus should instead settle on China and the other rising powers in the east, who could care less about the medievalist passions and failed-God orthodoxies that inflame our current dance with trimphalist right-wing retro-futurists.
Dr. Kurth sounds like a great thinker; I’m embarrassed to have missed him. I don’t know how Huntington would have felt about Dugin and Heidegger, but he really doesn’t get the credit he deserves as a theorist of identitarianism, even among people who should know better. Who Are We? is barely within the boundaries of liberal discourse. He proved far more prescient than the neoliberals and rightly should be considered one of the founders of mulipolarity discourse.
Christianity has been yesterday’s dying remnant of the past for 2000 years. Everyone predicts its death; it comes back nonetheless, over and over. De Maistre, as with everything, is brilliant on the subject, as he was in his critique more generally of rationalist government. God scatters the schemes of men like so many card-houses.
The Enlightenment is coming to an end because of the contradictions inherent to liberalism, as laid out in the work of Deneen, but which were obvious to any well-read 19th century reactionary long before. I don’t agree with Dugin on everything, but he is quite correct that liberalism is simply the last of the three Enlightenment ideologies to survive, and will go the way of the rest for the same reason. It had its time, but now that time is coming to an end.
It’s either Christianity or inhuman chaos. China’s decline has already started along with the rest of the developed East. Let’s not kid ourselves. Today’s systems will run their course and a new dark age with an old church will soldier on with some kooky yet fertile trad families making up most of the Western demographic.
Belloc put it best when he said that our departure from the faith will inevitably bring slavery, brutality, and insanity. He had been proven right again and again.
Great review, btw. I wrote a review on a book about the Habsburgs and their loose hold over a bunch of different polities. That may just be what happens to us as the world grows old and kooky trad America rules by default.
I suspect we'll all live to regret the passing of Enlightenment liberalism. However much you may despise and dismiss it, whatever follows is likely to be far worse (unless environmental death and violent destruction is your cup of tea). But we'll all get to watch. And if nothing else, it's likely to be gripping entertainment (of the grimmest sort).
Great article. Not sure I can support Eurasianism, as a Man of the West, but multi-polarity sounds interesting.
This channel has a really good video on another topic, "Neomedievalism", which is kinda like multi-polarity, but with one difference. It's true multi-polarity between Nation-States, private corporations, wealthy elite families, etc.
It's a complicated essay with many different ideological concepts running through it. I subscribed to von Hoffmeister. It's interesting that I've just recently started using a version of the word gestalt in a very particular context- specifically to illustrate how individuals can be superficially correct in certain aspects of their diagnosis of the broad malady afflicting the West, or in certain aspects of specific policy, but still miss the boat when it comes to the gestalt sum.
In diagnosing the terminal patient Liberalism, this was actually the entire problem from the start- Liberalism was always a gestalt entity with component parts which would come into conflict when empiricism was applied to deeply held principles that had become articles of faith for an entire civilisation. The most obvious example is equality versus fairness and the degree to which the two are mutually incompatible.
In many ways the failures of Liberalism reminds me of the Parable of the Talents. I've seen smarter, wiser men than me try to explain the Parable of the Talents, when the answer is that the Parable is inherently multi-layered and not meant to be read in pursuit of a single meaning. The collapse and degeneration of Liberalism wasn't due to any single failure, but due to collapse through internal contradictions within Liberalism as a gestalt entity. For example, two of Liberalisms highest precepts are the Universal Brotherhood of Man and egalitarianism, when one is a uniquely Christian concept and the other requires the incredibly high levels of social trust found within culturally homogenous societies. I'm sure it would horrify many secular humanists in pursuit of one world governance to realise their most deeply cherished notions amount to neo-Christian cultural colonialism.
I don't think ethnopluralism can work, unless one is talking about a confederacy of independent mini-states, deliberately self-limiting their inter-societal contact. The prime example in American history would be the American Civil War, which also demonstrates the likely destiny of ethnopluralist coalitions- the default resort to ever-increasing state authoritarianism over time, paired with the provision of licentious trivial freedoms in exchange for essential ones.
I hate to say it but the only real solution I can think of to our modern conundrum is some form of multi-ethnic reification of Camelot complete with the Judeo-Christian ethos, with Christian beliefs the optional premium package. Of course, special emphasis would have to be given to the potential for William Easterley's Tyranny of Experts...
Fascinating review and essay as always, I'm not sure I believe in ethnopluralism anymore, it sounds like you said dangerously like multiculturalism just rebranded.
That said you make a good point pointing to Rome as an example of spiritual pluralism and also to the flaws inherent in each belief system and the lead up to our present circumstances.
It really does seem like the world of pre-1914 is starting to make a comeback or even 1945. It is really quite interesting from a purely intellectual standpoint. It does make predicting the future impossible though haha.
From what I can see Liberalism is peeling away from Europe, day by day it seems to me that Europe is turning away from these ideals, most people from there I talk to want liberalism gone. When it comes to pre-1914 I mean the world pre-Conquest by America as 1945 was really a conquest by America (I'm not badmouthing America here, just commenting that America became dominant over Europe in 1945).
At this point I think predicting the future is impossible and that it is best to remain hopeful.
(OK, I'm going to try very hard not to sound nasty or mean. Just realistic)
So, pre-1914, when Europe thought they were the cat's pajamas?? When there was a whole lot more folks that though in Classically Liberal ways?
Those Europeans that want "liberalism" gone? What do they want? Paganism, the divine right of kings? What do they think they can possibly replace it with?
Yeah, Europe may be stuck in their delusion that they are the dominant power, but that IS their delusion. They will never be a dominant power again. So, maybe they had better decide to save themselves as European countries , and only worry about "dominant" powers that want to destroy them.
Von Hoffmeister offers several models for how this might work in practice. He explores the various iterations of the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union, which allowed for a wide range of nations to exist under a central political unity.
That's the best he can come up with? How about America? 50 individual countries living under one umbrella. How about the United Kingdom? Where the British brought enlightenment.
But The Soviet Union? Really? One world under communism.
Dear Librarian, I didn't know about Constantin's writings until I read this post. He writes wonderfully, man of great culture and poetry. I subscribed.
He truly does, the man is brilliant.
Thank you very much! I greatly appreciate it.
Actually loved your essay on Greeks and barbarians (and many others from your Substack). Will follow you in the future.
We need a revival.
Yeah. We do.
🧠 💣 Mind blowing essay. Brilliant stuff!
Thank you very much.
This all seems roughly on-point. Not sure Samuel Huntington would like sharing a bed with Alexander Dugin. And he might have barely known anything about Heidegger. However, it's worth noting that in a lecture in one of his classes at Harvard shortly before he died, he did observe (sardonically) that Islamic sexual repression was likely the best recruiting tool for young Al Quaeda members, and if they had been encouraged to freely masturbate (perhaps all over each other), none would have joined up. You'd enjoy one of his early graduate students (and a former professor of mine) named James Kurth, who's probably smarter than Huntington and who has long been a scourge of liberalism and a Christian conservative. He is (or was) good buddies with Robby George.
But I'm not sure about the cementing, civilizational role of Christianity in your quasi-fascist new world disorder. Kind of think Christianity is in the rear-view mirror, despite its recent right-wing revival. When we talk about civilizations, we're really talking about cosmologies, of course. Liberalism is weak these days for entropic reasons, not because it is morally derelict. After 250 years, the system has simply run its course. And so its cosmology as the basis for any form of civilizational integrity is now pretty much worthless
But in the battle to come for a hegemonic cosmology, in whatever pole of the world you want to choose, the sciences of complexity, the scaffolding of thermodynamics, and the scaling laws of motion are likely to prevail. The prepolitical and unalterable "values" and "premises" of Christianity will not stand a chance.
Which is why we (by which I mean "you" and your colleagues) should definitely stop beating the dead horse (unless your primary goal is to inflict pain) and give liberalism the dignity of a quiet death. We (by which I mean "you" and your colleages) also should discount any positive contribution that predatory Russia can make to building a durable future. Instead, our focus should instead settle on China and the other rising powers in the east, who could care less about the medievalist passions and failed-God orthodoxies that inflame our current dance with trimphalist right-wing retro-futurists.
Cheers,
Peter
Dr. Kurth sounds like a great thinker; I’m embarrassed to have missed him. I don’t know how Huntington would have felt about Dugin and Heidegger, but he really doesn’t get the credit he deserves as a theorist of identitarianism, even among people who should know better. Who Are We? is barely within the boundaries of liberal discourse. He proved far more prescient than the neoliberals and rightly should be considered one of the founders of mulipolarity discourse.
Christianity has been yesterday’s dying remnant of the past for 2000 years. Everyone predicts its death; it comes back nonetheless, over and over. De Maistre, as with everything, is brilliant on the subject, as he was in his critique more generally of rationalist government. God scatters the schemes of men like so many card-houses.
The Enlightenment is coming to an end because of the contradictions inherent to liberalism, as laid out in the work of Deneen, but which were obvious to any well-read 19th century reactionary long before. I don’t agree with Dugin on everything, but he is quite correct that liberalism is simply the last of the three Enlightenment ideologies to survive, and will go the way of the rest for the same reason. It had its time, but now that time is coming to an end.
It’s either Christianity or inhuman chaos. China’s decline has already started along with the rest of the developed East. Let’s not kid ourselves. Today’s systems will run their course and a new dark age with an old church will soldier on with some kooky yet fertile trad families making up most of the Western demographic.
Belloc put it best when he said that our departure from the faith will inevitably bring slavery, brutality, and insanity. He had been proven right again and again.
Great review, btw. I wrote a review on a book about the Habsburgs and their loose hold over a bunch of different polities. That may just be what happens to us as the world grows old and kooky trad America rules by default.
I suspect we'll all live to regret the passing of Enlightenment liberalism. However much you may despise and dismiss it, whatever follows is likely to be far worse (unless environmental death and violent destruction is your cup of tea). But we'll all get to watch. And if nothing else, it's likely to be gripping entertainment (of the grimmest sort).
Like an old donkey once said, life will continue as it always has: badly.
That said, I'll take the promise of a meaningful, short life than the lies of a long, empty one.
Great article. Not sure I can support Eurasianism, as a Man of the West, but multi-polarity sounds interesting.
This channel has a really good video on another topic, "Neomedievalism", which is kinda like multi-polarity, but with one difference. It's true multi-polarity between Nation-States, private corporations, wealthy elite families, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gmeuZyXcxo
This is a link to some of Kurth's stuff.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/can-give-me-links-to-works-by-UrM1L0ZHRXiLcyGgDHglcA
there's also this article about Kurth and Western Civilization
https://tinyurl.com/4tppza9a
It's a complicated essay with many different ideological concepts running through it. I subscribed to von Hoffmeister. It's interesting that I've just recently started using a version of the word gestalt in a very particular context- specifically to illustrate how individuals can be superficially correct in certain aspects of their diagnosis of the broad malady afflicting the West, or in certain aspects of specific policy, but still miss the boat when it comes to the gestalt sum.
In diagnosing the terminal patient Liberalism, this was actually the entire problem from the start- Liberalism was always a gestalt entity with component parts which would come into conflict when empiricism was applied to deeply held principles that had become articles of faith for an entire civilisation. The most obvious example is equality versus fairness and the degree to which the two are mutually incompatible.
In many ways the failures of Liberalism reminds me of the Parable of the Talents. I've seen smarter, wiser men than me try to explain the Parable of the Talents, when the answer is that the Parable is inherently multi-layered and not meant to be read in pursuit of a single meaning. The collapse and degeneration of Liberalism wasn't due to any single failure, but due to collapse through internal contradictions within Liberalism as a gestalt entity. For example, two of Liberalisms highest precepts are the Universal Brotherhood of Man and egalitarianism, when one is a uniquely Christian concept and the other requires the incredibly high levels of social trust found within culturally homogenous societies. I'm sure it would horrify many secular humanists in pursuit of one world governance to realise their most deeply cherished notions amount to neo-Christian cultural colonialism.
I don't think ethnopluralism can work, unless one is talking about a confederacy of independent mini-states, deliberately self-limiting their inter-societal contact. The prime example in American history would be the American Civil War, which also demonstrates the likely destiny of ethnopluralist coalitions- the default resort to ever-increasing state authoritarianism over time, paired with the provision of licentious trivial freedoms in exchange for essential ones.
I hate to say it but the only real solution I can think of to our modern conundrum is some form of multi-ethnic reification of Camelot complete with the Judeo-Christian ethos, with Christian beliefs the optional premium package. Of course, special emphasis would have to be given to the potential for William Easterley's Tyranny of Experts...
It sounds like he's suggesting something like the Ottoman Millet System?
Fascinating review and essay as always, I'm not sure I believe in ethnopluralism anymore, it sounds like you said dangerously like multiculturalism just rebranded.
That said you make a good point pointing to Rome as an example of spiritual pluralism and also to the flaws inherent in each belief system and the lead up to our present circumstances.
It really does seem like the world of pre-1914 is starting to make a comeback or even 1945. It is really quite interesting from a purely intellectual standpoint. It does make predicting the future impossible though haha.
"Liberal" Europe has chosen to die. I'm not sure the US will, or even BE willing, to save them this time.
I'm also not sure if " the world of pre-1914 is starting to make a comeback" is a great standard to aim for, since that lead to 1945.
Yeah, I'm a gloomy, gloomy pessimist, but Europe has to be willing to save itself.
Predicting the future IS impossible, but it doesn't look good.
From what I can see Liberalism is peeling away from Europe, day by day it seems to me that Europe is turning away from these ideals, most people from there I talk to want liberalism gone. When it comes to pre-1914 I mean the world pre-Conquest by America as 1945 was really a conquest by America (I'm not badmouthing America here, just commenting that America became dominant over Europe in 1945).
At this point I think predicting the future is impossible and that it is best to remain hopeful.
(OK, I'm going to try very hard not to sound nasty or mean. Just realistic)
So, pre-1914, when Europe thought they were the cat's pajamas?? When there was a whole lot more folks that though in Classically Liberal ways?
Those Europeans that want "liberalism" gone? What do they want? Paganism, the divine right of kings? What do they think they can possibly replace it with?
Yeah, Europe may be stuck in their delusion that they are the dominant power, but that IS their delusion. They will never be a dominant power again. So, maybe they had better decide to save themselves as European countries , and only worry about "dominant" powers that want to destroy them.
Von Hoffmeister offers several models for how this might work in practice. He explores the various iterations of the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union, which allowed for a wide range of nations to exist under a central political unity.
That's the best he can come up with? How about America? 50 individual countries living under one umbrella. How about the United Kingdom? Where the British brought enlightenment.
But The Soviet Union? Really? One world under communism.
Two actors yell at each other on TV...