#nationalist conservatism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

Mobile Tumblr US users spend an average of 4.04 minutes per session on the app.

#nationalist conservatism

thepoliticalvulcan · 5 months

Text

The Heritage Foundation Project 2025, Page 8

“Cultural institutions like public libraries and public health agencies are only as “independent” from public accountability as elected officials and voters permit.”

Two things I take away from this.

The first is that the concept of independence is implicitly anathema under Project 2025. The idea that an institution would take up and interpret a mission according to a set of internalized best practices, professionalism, evidence, and political agnosticism is unacceptable.

I realize that no human activity can ever be completely apolitical or free of error and bias, but there’s no room for benefit of the doubt that the Heritage Foundation has a set of what it is going to assert as objective truths about how public institutions must undertake their work and especially in the case of public health and libraries it will almost certainly not be in consultation with veteran practitioners.

We must avoid uncritical worship of expertise but we must also take expertise seriously rather than dismiss it out of hand because it disagrees with our aesthetic preferences.

The second is the positioning of public libraries and public health.

The CIA ran a clandestine abduction and torture program and then destroyed the tapes when subpoenaed by Congress. This wasn’t during the Cold War, it was in the 2000s.

There’s been exactly zero public reckoning with the efficacy and downstream consequences of the widespread use of drone strikes and kill capture raids as part of the Global War on Terror.

Dept of Homeland Security is accused of so many abuses of undocumented migrants that there are wars that have resulted in fewer civilian deaths.

A not insignificant part of the right believes that the FBI and Dept of Justice are complicit in persecuting Trump to sabotage his 2024 candidacy after colluding to undermine his Presidency and reelection bid.

But in the eyes of the Heritage Foundation, public libraries and public health are the menaces most worth singling out by name as dangerous renegades who must be brought back into compliance.

The Heritage Foundation is not 4Chan. It is not a collection of Substack cranks posting into the void. It’s a respected conservative think tank. Conservative politicians and government officials turn to it and it’s like for policy proposals and often ghost written legislation.

Take them seriously.

Take them literally.

#civil rights #intellectual freedom #donald trump #heritage foundation #project 2025 #fascism #nationalist conservatism #conservatism #libraries are for everyone #books & libraries #books and reading #public health #public libraries

3 notes · View notes

redshift-13 · 1 month

Text

A worthwhile read even for political nerds who've already heard of Project 2025 - the conservative plan to radically remake government should Trump or another Republican win the White House.

What stood out to me was information about Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, who is also the writer of the forward to Project 2025's 920 page report.

Thomas Zimmer writes,

One of the more frustrating aspects of studying and talking about American politics is that if you simply trace the radicalization of the Right and the Republican Party, there is a good chance a mainstream audience will dismiss you as a leftwing conspiracy theorist or an unhinged “activist.” Donald Trump’s outrageousness notwithstanding, it is difficult to convey to people who don’t pay much attention to politics how much the power centers of conservative politics have been taken over by anti-democratic extremism. One way to deal with this problem is to get people to actually read and listen to what emanates from the Right...

One measure of irrationalism (or ignorance) is the extent to which one rejects facts (or the most reasonable explanation) or embraces beliefs that are mistaken for facts.

In this regard Kevin Roberts is an egregious offender. For example, he denies climate change, a stance that in 2024 presupposes so much cognitive bias and ignorance that it's jaw dropping.

He also believes that Trump won the election,

Asked about whether or not he believed Joe Biden had won the 2020 election, the flatly answered: “No” – and simply insisted that Heritage had an “election-fraud database” of its own to prove he was right.

Dozens of court cases have found no evidence of this claim. The idea that Heritage nonetheless harbors a golden database vindicating Trump but refuses to make this information known in a court of law defies belief. It forces the working assumption that Roberts not only has no evidence confirming Trump's win, but that his belief that he does is a hopeful delusion, an idée fixe of the hyper-partisan who can't let go. Roberts is in thrall to the false liberation of emotional certainty that's retracted its anchor to reality.

What then happens to democracy, to the future of a geographically and legally unified country, to civil peace, to taking intelligent legislative action on any front, when one of our two political parties and its ideological base succumbs to irrationalism and a world of beliefs that have little connection to reality?

#project 2025 #thomas zimmer #kevin roberts #heritage foundation #the intellectual collapse of conservatism #christian nationalists in the news

14 notes · View notes

grandhotelabyss · 2 years

Photo

Please see my guest essay on the Substack of the perspicacious Default Friend AKA Katherine Dee: “Back to the Maternal Bosom of the Pantsuited Neoliberalism.” It’s about art, politics, and “racist liberalism,” the latest ideological twist of the post-left/new right, which, as in the screenshot above, brings them right back to the maternal matrix that they’d fled in the first place. The piece is paywalled, but DF’s well worth a $5 subscription if you’d like to know the deeper significance of what happens online.

#cultural criticism #hillary clinton #american politics #anna khachiyan #dasha nekrasova #red scare #perfume nationalist #liberalism #neoliberalism #the new conservatism #post-left

6 notes · View notes

thenewdemocratus · 9 months

Text

Slate Magazine: Dave Weigel: Sarah Palin vs. Beltway Republicans: Conservatism in America 2014

Source:The New Democrat If Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin are the faces of Conservatism in America in 2014, then we might as well start planning its funeral and Liberals can declare victory in this ongoing ideological war of some 50 years now. The only two Conservatives at CPAC last weekend were Senator Rand Paul and former U.S. Senator/actor/talk show host/commercial spokesperson, whatever the…

View On WordPress

1 note · View note

racefortheironthrone · 4 months

Note

Maybe this is too broad, but wondering if there's a better term than "conspiracy theorist" to describe some large figures in the ongoing national discourse? Not that "fluoride in the drinking crowd" were serious thinkers or total harmless, but am I alone is finding "conspiracy theory" too quaint and mild to describe how mainstream rather fringe these things are and also how totally evidence-free and something just plain dumb they can also be?

I don’t think conspiracy theories have ever been quaint and mild.

Think about the history of antisemitism from medieval blood libels to 19th century theories of Jewish financial cabals to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” dreamed up by Tsarist agents-provocateur that took the theory global and spawned untold numbers of imitators, to Hitler’s invention of “Judeo-Bolshevism” that married traditional antisemitism to anti-Communism and nationalist populism. Conspiracy theories one and all, but fully capable of spawning pogroms and fascist dictatorships.

Likewise, we think of Anti-Masonic or Illuminati conspiracy theories as self-evidently ridiculous and harmless, but we forget that they were used by cultural conservatives in church and state to wage culture wars on the Enlightenment, liberalism, secularism, democracy, every revolution from America to France to 1848 and beyond, feminism and almost every social movement of the 18th and 19th century. People died or were surveilled or were sent to prison, political parties were formed or banned, and conservatism itself was founded in the name of “poisoning the minds of the lower orders” to inoculate them from the influence of secret societies.

As Dan Olsen has shown, even seemingly benign conspiracy theories like the JFK assassination cover-up or the Moon landing was faked or the earth is flat can hide much more malign motivations, just waiting for the opportunity to radicalize and proselytize:

youtube

#history #historical analysis #cultural history #conspiracy theories #conspiracies #anti semitism #illuminati #freemasons #flat earthers

141 notes · View notes

just-late-roman-republic-things · 16 days

Text

Warning signs of fascist themes in history media

Fascism is a reactionary, authoritarian and nationalist ideology that opposes peace, democracy, and human rights. Fascists are sometimes attracted to history because they use it to promote violence and myths of racial superiority. Fascist ideas can be found in certain books, movies, social media, Youtube channels and more.

Here I'm going to talk about general patterns to help you recognize fascist shit when you see it, examples I've seen in Roman history studies, and suggestions for what you can do about it.

Fascist themes

I have focused on themes rather than specific dogwhistles, arguments, or symbols, because fascist rhetoric often disguises itself to appear more palatable, and varies across countries. Themes are also useful for analyzing books, podcasts, and other media where political bias isn't always obvious. For specific fascist code-words and symbols, see the links at the end of this post.

Not every item on this list will appear for every fascist, and not every person who does one of these things is a fascist. But any of them should warn you to be on alert.

1. Fascism is reactionary.

Fascism rejects the modern, changing world. Fascists feel like the "natural order" or "old way of life" is threatened and must be preserved. They may call themselves conservatives or traditionalists, but their methods and goals are more radical and disruptive than traditional conservatism.

Fascists often feel like they have been attacked, humiliated, or left out of their rightful place in society. They resent groups of people they believe are getting undeserved benefits or respect. These groups are usually minorities such as immigrants, Jews, queer people, women or racial minorities. The fascist may believe these groups are involved in a conspiracy to undermine or corrupt "decent" people, or to abuse children.

Be especially alert for antisemitism, which accounts for a large number of hate crimes, and has been a key part of most fascist movements.

The fascist portrays modern society as weak, corrupt, degenerate, or oppressive to people like himself.

In history media, this may appear as nostalgia for the past, "reject modernity, return to tradition," and romanticizing a primitive or traditional aesthetic. It can also show up as whitewashing the "heroic" culture and vilifying other cultures, or erasing the existence of minorities from history altogether. The fascist may downplay historical injustices like slavery and the exclusion of women from the workforce.

2. Fascism is authoritarian.

The "natural order" of the fascist is hierarchical, with some people mattering more than others. Those on the bottom of society are there because they deserve it, and their struggles and feelings don't matter. If they demand equal rights, assistance programs or respect, they are seen as entitled, lazy, whiny, and arrogant. Naturally, the fascist assumes his place is at or near the top of the hierarchy.

The fascist usually opposes ambiguity and crossing boundaries - mixed race couples, cultural exchange, women in mostly-male jobs, trans and gender-nonconforming people - because these undermine the artificial divisions in the fascist hierarchy.

A powerful central authority is seen as necessary to fix society. To be good requires obedience; to disagree makes you a traitor.

If the fascist has a leader, that leader is idolized and unquestioned. The fascist leader is typically charismatic, masculine, and "tough on crime." The fascist denies any wrongdoing from the leader, minimizes or tries to justify it.

Opposition to democracy, because democracy requires dissent. The legislature is de-legitimized as representing the people's will, and elections are called fraudulent without evidence. The fascist sees rule of law as a hindrance to "reforming" society. (This separates the fascist from the "mainstream" conservative, who usually cares more about upholding the status quo.)

Many fascists will project authoritarianism onto their opponents because they assume those opponents also view the world this way, just with a different group on top.

In history media this may appear as glorifying anti-democratic leaders, justifying violence as necessary, or denying that shameful events like the Holocaust happened. The fascist is also likely to portray democracy, defense attorneys, and civil rights activists as obstacles to doing "what needs to be done."

3. Fascism is nationalistic.

Fascists usually identify strongly with a certain nation, culture, or race. Different kinds of people are seen as inherently different in moral character, intellectual ability, or skills. You are encouraged to derive your worth from this group identity and to treat other people based on theirs.

This group is elevated at the expense of individual human rights. The fascist only values freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the rights of the accused for himself and his allies. People who are inferior or who disagree are not granted those same rights.

This offers a sense of identity and pride for people whose identity is feels unstable or threatened. It preys upon the lonely, the disillusioned, the failures. Historically, most fascist support comes from middle-class people who feel insecure about their place in the world, and angered by the rise of groups they see as beneath them.

4. Fascism is anti-intellectual.

Although fascists are attracted to history, they are usually more interested in using history as a prop for their mythic struggle of good and evil than in learning what history actually was.

Fascists will readily cherry-pick events and stories that feel glorious, exciting or romantic, or which feed their belief of being victimized. They will ignore or distort information that contradicts this, like historical multiculturalism and facts that make the "glorious race/empire" look bad.

The fascist may also combine myths, occult symbols, or historical details with no connection to each other, looking for a "deep underlying truth" that academics have missed (because it doesn't exist).

Fascists often try to discredit scientists, historians and the humanities. They may accuse "ivory-tower intellectuals" of being wrong, worthless, elitist or out of touch, or even creating a conspiracy to hide the truth. By framing intellectuals as the enemy, the fascist gives himself an excuse not to listen to them or doubt his fantasy of superiority.

When fascists present their own intellectuals, these intellectuals usually fixate on denouncing modern society and supporting fascist ideology, not on new discoveries or creativity. In the fascist mindset, all important truths are already known, all cultural and moral questions are already solved. Art can only conform to accepted standards, not challenge standards or create anything new.

Self-contradiction and hypocrisy. Fascist ideology appeals to people's feelings, not their logic. The enemy is both strong (to present a credible threat) and weak (so they can be held in contempt). The genocide didn't happen - and if it did, it wasn't really that bad. It's wrong for others to offend us, but we are justified in harassing or attacking them.

Intolerance of disagreement and dissent. The fascist mistakes feeling uncomfortable for being harmed, and thus any statements that make him feel uncomfortable, must be attacks from bad people. Critics must be shamed, mocked, harassed into silence, or expelled. Changing your mind is a sign of weakness.

Black and white morality / intolerance of nuance. The fascist has already decided that some people are right, period, and others are wrong, period. There is no room for morally complicated situations or mutual responsibility.

In-group jargon and redefining words. The fascist may refer to his opponents as slurs, say "pedophile" when he means "gay people," or invent new slang, dogwhistles and acronyms. This word-shuffling builds a sense of connection with other fascists, helps to dehumanize the enemy, and allows fascists to deny that they're bad people because they're not using specific bad words. (A fascist may complain about "Zionists" when he means "Jews," use Norse runes instead of swastikas, or say he's "proud of his heritage" instead of a white supremacist.)

In history media, look for dogwhistles, narratives with clear "good guys" and "bad guys," claims of a conspiracy among intellectuals or bankers, and contradictions. Does the text try to persuade you with evidence and logic, or with emotional appeals? Does it downplay or erase facts that would undermine the author's argument?

5. Fascism is violent.

Glorification of violence and war. Fascists believe that violence against their enemies is both necessary and justified to "defend their way of life," or protect society. They exult in shows of physical strength and aggression, and see physical weakness as pathetic. Weapons may be glorified and fetishized as well.

This can also extend to sexual violence and domination. The woman is an accessory to macho fantasies: an object of conquest, a prize to be flaunted and defended, a symbol of the man's own success and competence. A man who feels humiliated or threatened by a woman, perhaps because she rejected or outranked him, may threaten rape to "put her in her place."

The cult of heroic death. To overcome people's natural instinct to live, fascism glorifies veterans and martyrs, and encourages people to identify with and fight for the nation/race. Courage and strength are equated with violence. The costs of war are ignored - homelessness, starvation, massacres, grief, lifelong trauma and disability for many - even on the "winning" side.

Opposition to peace. Pacifists and neutral parties are considered traitors. Compromise is seen as giving in to the enemy. "You are either with us or against us."

Fascist justice centers on punishment, enforcing obedience and purging "bad people" rather than rehabilitation, education, or providing adequate social services.

In history media, look for an emphasis on the military, weapons, symbols of power, brutality, conquest, and sexual violence. Are these things equated with masculinity, power or success? Are we encouraged to identify with the conqueror instead of the conquered? Does the narrative mention people who opposed the war, or are they erased or lumped in with traitors?

6. Fascism is mean-spirited.

You probably noticed resentment, insecurity, anger and contempt in the previous sections. Fascism appeals to these emotions within people, and tells them that their unhappiness is other people's fault.

In fascist communities and blogs you will often see these same negative feelings, and externalized blame. Less overt fascist spaces may seem supportive, friendly, or just like hobbyists having fun, and this draws vulnerable people in. But it's juxtaposed with a deep disrespect for those who are seen as inferior.

Fascist jokes and memes are usually predicated on smugness (at being part of a "superior" race or nation), contempt (for "lesser" people), anger, or violent fantasies. They have a mean streak and may appear ironic ("It's just a joke, lighten up"), for the sake of plausible deniability.

The fascist does not merely hate that the "Other" exists (although they often do) - they resent being expected to treat others with respect, empathy and equality. They may demonize empathy by calling others "special snowflakes" who are trying to enforce "political correctness" or restrict freedom of speech. These are deflections so the fascist can avoid admitting how unreasonable and hurtful his behavior actually is.

Pay attention to how specific communities and media make you feel. Do you feel like you're becoming angrier or more fearful of the world over time? Do you feel less respect for certain kinds of people than you used to, or see the world's problems as those people's fault? If so, those spaces and media may be unhealthy for you, and could be promoting prejudice.

Example red flags I've seen in Roman history studies

Exulting over the Roman empire's size.

War being portrayed as exciting, heroic or brave.

Arguing that conquest (especially Caesar's conquest of Gaul) was justified.

Praising the emperors Vespasian, Titus or Hadrian uncritically - all of whom were involved in brutal oppression of Jewish people.

Arguing that Roman slavery was "not that bad" compared to other forms of slavery.

Unironically calling non-Romans barbarians, savages, or primitive.

Erasure of Rome's cultural and ethnic diversity, the role of women in politics, and queer history.

Portraying the end of free elections, debate, and political opposition as a good thing, particularly under Julius Caesar or Augustus.

Attributing the fall of Rome to "moral decline" or "degeneracy."

Attraction to symbols of power and famous military leaders - legions, centurion armor, idolizing Caesar, even the word "fascism" comes from the Latin fasces.

Falsely claiming that the Nazi salute originated with the Romans. (It's a neoclassical invention.)

Now, just because you see these red flags doesn't automatically mean the person is a fascist. Sometimes people use a word or meme without realizing its implications, and older works often say things that would be offensive today. That's another reason why I focused on general themes.

Look at the underlying patterns in what a person or work is saying, and think about what they want you to believe. As a whole, does it seem reactionary, authoritarian, nationalist, anti-intellectual, pro-violence, and/or mean-spirited? Conversely, if the person or work seems to value open-mindedness, democracy, education, peace, empathy, feminism, and multiculturalism, and if they treat those who disagree with them with respect, those are all good signs.

How should you respond?

A full guide to fighting fascism is beyond the scope of this post. I suggest contacting human rights groups in your area for the best ways to counter fascism in general.

For media with fascist themes or by fascist creators:

Do not share, recommend, or give it a wider audience. Even if it's "just a funny meme," spreading it can give fascists more followers, and make them more confident to attempt violence.

Do not spend money that will support fascist creators, organizers, or groups if you can avoid it. Don't buy their books, anime, hockey team apparel, whatever. Boycott them and tell people why.

Call it what it is. Fascist, racist, white supremacist, or whatever label applies. Don't use euphemisms for the sake of politeness - that only helps fascism appear respectable.

Post or share critical reviews that explain why the media is fascist. This will help others learn to recognize and call out fascism, too.

Sometimes people are attracted to controversial works just to be contrarian or to see what the controversy is about. You might decide it's more effective to avoid naming fascist works and giving them more publicity, and instead to call out the fascist ideas in them, to educate others. This is the approach I took in this post, but which method is better depends on the situation.

Don't use "fascist" for any bigot, conservative, or person you dislike. This waters the word down and makes it less likely to be taken seriously when a real hate group is threatening people. Fascism is a particularly violent, extreme, and anti-democratic type of bigotry. But when you DO see fascism, name and shame it.

If it's on social media or a blog, do not respond to it directly. Make a new post instead debunking it. This will avoid giving the fascists a broader audience, and they're less likely to notice and threaten you. Block and report them; try to get their communities removed from the platform. On a large enough scale, this helps prevent fascist groups from organizing and expanding their membership.

Read, watch, and promote non-fascist media and sources, like I do in my book reviews and favorites page. Bonus points if you can find sources for historical diversity and multiculturalism!

Further resources

This is an updated version of my older post, based on my notes from Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism and Stuart Hood's Fascism: A Graphic Guide. I also found Miriam Griffin's A Companion to Julius Caesar anthology useful for understanding how fascism and other political movements have co-opted Roman history for their own purposes.

The Alt-Right Playbook video series deconstructs fascist and alt-right arguments, and explains how they gain traction in politics, particularly in the USA.

Subtler signs of fascism: What are dogwhistles? / List of dogwhistles (incomplete) / List of hate symbols / Early Warning Signs of Fascism

Art Spiegelman's graphic novel Maus is a memoir of the Holocaust from the viewpoint of an Auschwitz survivor and his son. It is much darker and more visceral than the preceding books, but also valuable for demonstrating what fascism looks like "on the ground" when it gains power, and the consequences if we do not fight against it.

If you or someone you love has gotten involved with hate groups, Life After Hate offers support and counseling. Also check out QAnon Casualties - Resources, even if the group isn't QAnon. Your past doesn't have to define your future.

For good sources on Roman history, I have a page of recommended media, including links to resources on queer history, Black history, disability studies, women in classical antiquity, and my tips for evaluating whether a history book is reliable.

I am not a historian or political theorist. If I got something wrong or if you have additional helpful info, please don't hesitate to say so!

#warning: this is like 2800 words #as usual i'm not a historian just an amateur trying to help raise awareness #correct me if i got anything wrong #good luck. i love you all <3 #fascism #media literacy #critical thinking #literary analysis #jlrrt essays #things to whack racists with

55 notes · View notes

hazardous-waste-containment · 1 year

Text

Religious fundamentalism: The process of isolating out a religion’s core doctrine and investing it with ultimate authority while rejecting all later developments as superfluous or heretical; e.g. Salafi Islam, Karaite Judaism, fundamentalist Christianity.

Religious conservatism: The preservation of a religion and its customs as they have been passed down over the centuries by the clergy and wider society; e.g. traditional Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, Hindu traditionalism.

Religious modernism: Altering a religious tradition to adapt it to new social, political, cultural, and scientific developments; e.g. modernist Christianity, Reform Judaism, ‘neo-Hinduism’, Islamic modernism.

Fundamentalism and conservatism do not have anything inherently to do with religious politics and likewise modernism does not necessarily mean the removal of religion from public life. I will get to politics soon.

A better way to visualize these than discrete categories might be something like this, sorry for the image quality:

They are processes and tendencies, things you do to your religion, which can absolutely bleed together and coexist.

Today the official position of many religious institutions (e.g. the mainstream Catholic Church or LDS Church) falls somewhere between conservatism and modernism. Conservative and Modern Orthodox Judaism are also good examples – of being willing to bend significantly in some areas while upholding tradition in others.

The Islam of Muammar Gaddafi, the Hinduism of Dayanand Saraswati, and arguably the State Shintō of the Meiji Restoration (though Shintō isn’t scriptural) exemplify a different trend: that sometimes the most effective way to modernize is to fundamentalize. If your goal is to radically reshape the tradition, then stripping it down to the fundamentals can give you more latitude to innovate, and delegitimizes the conservative clergy who have a stake in keeping the tradition the way it is, all while framing your project as in fact the most orthodox.

More commonly though, fundamentalists will make common cause with conservatives. Christian fundamentalists in the U.S., with a few radical exceptions like Reconstructionism, have more or less always considered themselves a type of conservative, and there is a strong resonance between fundamentalists and conservatives in Islam – Saudi Wahhabism takes a fundamentalizing approach in law and culture while upholding ecclesiastical and monarchical power, and was instrumental in the rise of more categorical fundamentalisms like al-Qaeda (though even bin Laden cited medieval scholarship when it suited him). In a similar sense some on the Jewish Orthodox right, especially Kahanists, have a fundamentalizing emphasis on returning to the Torah given at Sinai but remain bound to the later rabbinic tradition – “aspiring fundamentalists within a framework that poses challenges to achieving such a thing” in @boffin-in-training’s words.

I would also mention the tendency for an old fundamentalism to calcify into a new conservatism, almost cyclically. The Protestant Reformation was in many ways a radical fundamentalization of Christianity, but today Protestantism is its own religious tradition with its own conservatives. Again, see Saudi Wahhabi Islam for what Michael Cook calls an “eighteenth-century fundamentalism” that evolved into a “puritanical conservatism”.

Religious politics: Any use of religion for the purposes of modern politics, e.g. political Catholicism, Islamism, Hindu nationalism.

Religious nationalism or ‘religio-nationalism’: Religious politics with primarily nationalist, ethno-territorial concerns linking religious identity with national identity; e.g. most Balkan nationalisms, Hindu nationalism, Buddhist nationalism, the Muslim League, Zionism. There’s a subtle difference between religious identity as national identity, such as in the examples above, versus a national church playing a strong role in cementing an existing secular nationality, e.g. Anglicanism in England or Catholicism in Spain and Poland.

Fascisms which define the ingroup religiously belong here. They are still technically secular and prioritize national and cultural identity above all: the Sangh Parivar has a Muslim wing and the Ustaše even tried to set up their own Orthodox Church.

Religious dominionism or clericalism: Religious politics trying to expand religious control over the government to impose certain values on society, whether in a fundamentalist or conservative (or even modernist) spirit; e.g. Islamism, the Christian right, integral Catholicism, Israel’s Orthodox right. These could be divided, on the model of Salafism, into ‘activist’ or ‘political’ movements which try to win elections within the existing system, and ‘insurgents’ who want to overthrow godless governments and install ones of their own.

Both names have drawbacks: dominionism suggests fully-fledged theocratic rule whereas I mean it much more broadly, while clericalism implies the role of a clergy even though many fundamentalists and modernists are explicitly anti-clerical. Certainly it would seem odd to describe Hassan al-Turabi or Muammar Gaddafi as ‘clericalists’.

Clerical fascism: Given what I just said it might be most accurate to use ‘clerical fascism’ as Roger Griffin does, to refer specifically to the collaboration of clergy with fascist movements (e.g. the stance of the Catholic Church in Italy, Croatia, Brazil, etc), especially through genuine ideological fusion like in the work of Emanuel Hirsch. Theoretically this is distinct from (quasi)fascist movements which incorporate dominionism on their own, like the Kahanist ‘halachic state’ or the League of the South’s intention to run independent Dixie on Biblical law. None of the original clericofascisti or Deutsche Christen had such extreme goals.

This post brought to you by:

Ancient Religions, Modern Politics: The Islamic Case in Comparative Perspective, Michael Cook

“The appeal of Islamic fundamentalism,” Michael Cook

“The New Religious Politics and Women Worldwide: A Comparative Study,” Nikki Keddie

Salafi movement – Wikipedia

“The ‘Holy Storm’: ‘Clerical Fascism’ Through the Lens of Modernism,” Roger Griffin

My attempt at a typology of fascist religious discourse with @anarchotolkienist’s helpful addition, and a later one which sort of anticipated this post although with some different terminology.

And a very interesting conversation about Cook’s work with @ boffin-in-training in the fash study Discord.

#reading #christian identity politics #armp #cannot emphasize enough that i have no professional authority in history or political science i'm just autistic

348 notes · View notes

lavenderlyncis · 1 year

Note

Your heart is in the right place, but saying England is one of the most nationalist and xenophobic countries in the world makes you sound ignorant

England is incredibly nationalist and xenophobic.

Saying that it's 'one of the most' is more of a hyperbole. You know, a form of speech. It's not a competition. I don't care how much 'less bad' than other countries England is. It is still deeply nationalist and, as I myself have experienced, xenophobic. So them calling Scotland evil nationalists for wanting to get the hell away from them and their conservatism (which we are seeing right now with them trying to block the gender reform act) is pretty weird.

#asks #scottish independence

375 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 1 month

Text

Katherine Stewart at TNR (08.10.2023):

Earlier this year, nearly 1,000 supporters of “National Conservatism” gathered at the semicircular auditorium of the Emmanuel Centre, an elegant London meeting hall a couple of blocks south of Westminster Abbey, to hear from a range of scholars, commentators, politicians, and public servants. NatCon conferences, as they are often called, have been held in Italy, Belgium, and Florida and are broadly associated with what is increasingly called the “New Right.” In London, speakers denounced “woke politics,” blamed immigration for the rising cost of housing, and said modern ills could be solved with more religion and more (nonimmigrant) babies. The break room was lined with booths from organizations such as the Viktor Orbán–affiliated Danube Institute, the U.K.-based conservative think tank the Bow Group, the Heritage Foundation, and the legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, which is headquartered in Arizona but has expanded to include offices in nearly a half-dozen European cities. When I attended NatCon London in May, I heard a number of American accents in the crowd, and I was not surprised to see Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, a right-wing think tank, on the lineup. These days, Anton and other key representatives of the Claremont Institute seem to be everywhere: onstage at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC); at the epicenter of Ron DeSantis’s “war on woke”; and on speed-dial with GOP allies including Josh Hawley, J.D. Vance, and Donald Trump.

Most of us are familiar with the theocrats of the religious right and the anti-government extremists, groups that overlap a bit but remain distinct. The Claremont Institute folks aren’t quite either of those things, and yet they’re both and more. In embodying a kind of nihilistic yearning to destroy modernity, they have become an indispensable part of right-wing America’s evolution toward authoritarianism. Extremism of the right-wing variety has always figured on the sidelines of American culture, and it has enjoyed a renaissance with the rise of social media. But Claremont represents something new in modern American politics: a group of people, not internet conspiracy freaks but credentialed and influential leaders, who are openly contemptuous of democracy. And they stand a reasonable chance of being seated at the highest levels of government—at the right hand of a President Trump or a President DeSantis, for example.

[...]

Founded in 1979 in the city of Claremont, California (but not associated in an official way with any of the five colleges there), the Claremont Institute provided enthusiastic support for Donald Trump in 2016. Individuals associated with Claremont now fund and help run the National Conservativism gatherings; Claremont Institute chairman and funder Thomas D. Klingenstein also funds the Edmund Burke Foundation, which has held those National Conservatism conferences across the globe. Claremont is deeply involved in DeSantis’s effort to remake Florida’s state universities in the model of Hillsdale College—a private, right-wing, conservative Christian academy in Michigan whose president, Larry Arnn, happens to be one of the institute’s founders and former presidents. Claremont honored DeSantis at an annual gala with its 2021 “Statesmanship Award,” and the governor returned the favor by organizing a discussion with a “brain trust” that included figures associated with the Claremont Institute. If either Trump or DeSantis becomes president in 2024, Claremont and its associates are likely to be integral to the “brain trust” of the new administration. Indeed, some of them are certain to become appointees in the administrative state that they wish (or so they say) to destroy.

The Claremont Institute in the Trump era has become a clearinghouse for far-right and fascistic ideas.

#Claremont Institute #Conservativism #Right Wing Extremism #Alliance Defending Freedom #Danube Institute #The Heritage Foundation #Michael Anton #CPAC #CPAC Hungary #Bow Group

10 notes · View notes

thepoliticalvulcan · 5 months

Text

National Democratic Socialism is just National Socialism with the affectation of democracy like the illiberal, managed, and/or electoral authoritarian regimes and parties that have emerged within democratic societies in recent decades.

I don’t buy it as an attempt to rebrand class reductionism to be more intriguing to conservatives questioning capitalism. Interacting with these sorts, it’s clear that they don’t understand or care about the nuances of the debate over intersectionality vs class first, last, and always.

They largely dismiss the idea that people’s non-economic identities have merit in a way that feels more aggressive and pernicious than those who view bigotry as a function of capitalism and false consciousness rather than something that may have its own independent existence and sources in human behavior.

I’m willing to draw distinctions between these people who seem to be emulating the neo-fascist parties of Europe that have both center right and center left parties on the ropes and classical class focused leftists. The difference is while class reductionists may view bigotry as false consciousness and a tool of elite oppression, these fascists pretending to be leftists are as obsessed with all the same predilections of the hard right as any MAGA red hat or Gen Z / Millennial wehraboo.

#National Democratic Socialism #nazis #nationalist conservatism #neofascism #democratic socialism #class war #intersectionality #intra left squabbles

0 notes

definitely-not-the-kgb · 11 months

Text

I had to log in to my computer for this. Let's go.

I. Hate. Nationalists.

I. Hate. Conservatives.

I hate self-proclaimed "Marxists" who are both Conservative and Nationalistic.

Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and all Leftist ideologies are incompatible with Conservatism and Nationalism. There is no compatibility between them, and the adoption of Conservatism and Nationalism by economically Socialist people and parties is not only revisionist, it is a total and complete betrayal of Marxism in all its forms, including Leninism and Stalinism, ideologies behind which many of these bastards hide behind.

The LGBT community benefitted thoroughly from Socialism in Eastern Europe, that is undeniable. Countries like the German Democratic Republic, the Polish People's Republic, the Republic of Cuba, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and the Lao People's Democratic Republic have brought freedom, in large part, to LGBT people, within the frameset of their times. The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the People's Republic of Bulgaria made enormous scientific steps to understand LGBT people. Lenin had liberated LGBT people in the early Soviet Union before Stalin undid that in one of the worst mistakes of his premiership.

For self-proclaimed "Socialists" and "Marxists" to deny this is to deny historical fact and give into the lies of Liberal propaganda, based mainly on a purposeful misunderstanding of history and on survivorship bias. Am I saying that LGBT people were entirely free? Of course not. Persecution was still common in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia, Romania, Albania, and -of course- the Post-Stalinist USSR, and even in countries where it was wholly legalised, often the governments didn't go further to ensure protection, but this happened at a time where in the Capitalist Bloc tens of thousands of LGBT people were executed and imprisoned compared to a few thousand in all of the Eastern Bloc in the same time.

The liberation of LGBT people is inherent to Marxism, and anybody who claims that not to be the case is not only a revisionist and a reactionary but a traitor to the revolution and the cause: Do not let their pitiful attempts at Identity Politics get to you. No war other than the class war means no war based on gender, no war based on ethnicity, race, nation, or anything. The only fight that Socialism must embark upon is that of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie war whose intrinsic goal is overthrowing the established order and liberating the proletariat, be they a woman, a man, neither, both, in between, or someone else entirely. Regardless of who they do or do not love.

Nationalism is against all the values of Marx and Engels, Lenin and even Stalin. Do not let them hide behind their excuses from Kim Il Sung and Stalin. Stalin never supported Nationalism. He explained in Marxism and the National Question that each nation has different material conditions, and thus they each have varying procedures to be taken to achieve the revolution. This is one of the few beliefs he shared with the Left Opposition of Trotsky.

The belief that the primary division of humanity is the nation is revisionist, not just revisionist but one of the main rhetorics of fascists and nazis, according to which the superiority of one nation over every other separates "Good" from "Bad". There is no "National Communism"; there is a "National Way to Communism", no Socialist Nationalism, no Left-Wing Nationalism. Any ideology that puts the nation before the people and culture before the workers, that ideology is not leftist, socialist, or Marxist, but rather some type of Falangism more or less moderate.

Be warned of these reactionaries and fascists pretending to be Socialists: do not fall for their rhetoric and stand your ground. The liberation of the proletariat includes everyone, all people of all nations, everywhere on Earth. No tolerance for the intolerants, no war but the class war, no enemy but the bourgeoisie. Remember, comrades, the revolution is red, rainbow, black, pink, blue, and every colour because the only struggle that unites us is against the oppression of Capitalism. The only things we have to lose from this liberation are our chains.

#marxism #socialist #communism #leftism #antifascism #anti capitalism #lgbtq #gay #lesbian #trans #anti reactionary #anti conservative #progressivism #workers solidarity #international solidarity #solidarity forever #workers rights #workers of the world unite #activism

50 notes · View notes

spacelazarwolf · 11 months

Note

I think there’s a significant conversation about how religion and queer ppl intersect but I’m tired of only seeing Christianity talked about as if it’s the only homophobic religion ever. Yeah there are queer Jewish people, there are queer everything people. But how is there a reconciliation between a religion with branches of extreme conservatism and lots of heteronormative writings. Overall I would like to see a lot more criticism of deeply conservative religions that aren’t just Christians. Yes criticism of conservative Christians, especially Christian nationalists since they hold a lot of political power, but overall all conservatism in religion needs to be deconstructed. And people never acknowledge harm that can be done by conservative people in other religions, especially since the specific Hasidic community I live next to has been increasingly hostile to me, especially when presenting as “visibly queer”

BRO SHUT UP!!!!! IT HAS BEEN HOURS!!!!!! GET A HOBBY THAT DOESNT INCLUDE HARASSING RANDOM JEWS ONLINE!!!!!

#ask avishai #also ngl i straight up do not believe u abt the hasidic community being ‘increasingly hostile’#hasidic jews are incredibly insular #unless you’re interacting with them extensively every single day i highly doubt they care

36 notes · View notes

autismvampyre · 4 months

Text

my mom and stepdad were watching tv last night and some guy was talking abt swedish history and how finland wasn't a colony, it was sweden back then and only finnish nationalists are offended when finland is referred to as part of the swedish kingdom and like??? i dont think thats true??? we were active colonisers. we're still living on and profiting off of stolen land of the native sami people.

one thing abt swedes is we love to have our cake and eat it too. we want so badly to be peaceful and war free for over a hundred years but also romanticize the swedish empire. King Gustav II Adolf was not the peak of civilization, we weren't "great" we were warmongering colonizers. theres also a lot of attention put on the fact that vikings "found" america first as part of nationalist propaganda.

"we were neutral in ww2" no, we sold weapons to both sides. neutral my ass, there were nazi sympathizers fucking everywhere. did everyone just forget the national institute of race biology in uppsala or what? we are not inclusive here. sami people couldnt own houses or have jobs, romani people were banned from schools. we were horrible and we aren't done fixing shit yet.

the whole of swedish culture is performative activism motivated by money. we're inclusive if it's popular and now that the trend is radical conservatism we're once again following the fucking wave. dont let people tell you this is a fair and inclusive country. they are lying.

#nydias post #nydia vents #sweblr #sweden #svensk politik #politics #colonialism #finland #suomitumblr

13 notes · View notes

loving-n0t-heyting · 10 months

Text

orwell gets called a "democratic socialist" a lot but i think this is not the best fit for distinguishing him from his ideological enemies. its true, ofc, that he was a socialist, and that he favoured a form of government he would call democratic, but the same could be said of any of the various marxists or other radicals against which he contrasted himself. obviously, for many of them (the stalinists first and foremost) these democratic pretenses were pretty dubious, but you have to keep in mind we are judging him by a counterfactual socialist england that he described in his aspirational political writings, not (unlike the stalinists and even to an extent the trots) an actual socialist state of flesh-and-blood. nor did he restrict himself for calls to socialist organising within the confines of established democratic procedure: he was frank and only the most mildly reluctant in acknowledging his political goals would likely require armed revolt to achieve

what really centrally set him apart from other englishmen on the far left was his nationalism. he was deeply suspicious of anti nationalist political ideologies, partly bc he thought they promoted an intra-national elitism in the service of a specious international populism, partly bc he thought self-proclaimed antinationalists were invariably and dangerously trading in one nationalism/quasinationalism for another, and (what binds the last two together) bc he believed that deep down the nationalist impulse was psychologically ineffaceable from the human spirit. better a common sensical english patriotism, checked by socialist solidarity and time-tested counterbalances to deranged nationalist frenzy, than sublimating these same impulses into either some imaginary community of the future or the vivid this-worldly despotism of stalins moscow. better the devil yk

he was occasionally accused of being a crypto-trot, but we can see why that misses the mark. its not merely that he was dedicated to "socialism in one country" as much or more than any of his stalinist compatriots: while he evidently preferred lenin to his fated successor, he declined to hagiographise the revolution of 1917 as the first step towards an international brotherhood of man. for him it was a nationalist revolt on the model of the english civil war; perhaps with a more laudable coat of socialist paint, but not in kind fundamentally different

this unites several strands of thought setting him apart from his english comrades: his relative social conservatism, his acute ambivalence about anti-colonialism, his suspicion of the uk intelligentsia, his unwavering commitment to the british cause in wwii, even (most regrettably) his willingness to cooperate with the british authorities against his fellow leftists. certainly better than a generic endorsement of "democracy" in a hypothetical future english socialist republic or a purely negative/reactive anti-stalinism

36 notes · View notes

antifainternational · 2 years

Link

257 notes · View notes

Last Seen Blogs