The other interesting thinker whose work is widely published in French only is Jean Claude Michea.
He wouldn’t qualify as new right, but represents a healthy tendency in social democratic politics.. a bit like Sahra Wagenknecht, but with a stronger philosophical foundation. I’ve seen a few old articles by Michael Walker referencing him, but virtually none of his own work.
As for your latter two questions, I guess it depends what the source of that power is?
I find it telling that the goal isn't to make power more fluid, but to ossify it at the point in the 'game' when it suits them.
The piece I shared is quite long and you may heartily disagree with it, but I expose my reasons there better than I ever could in a comment.
I do appreciate that you engage with my admittedly incisive comment. I firmly believe dialogue and the confrontation of ideas does us all good. Credit where credit is due!
Does anyone obtain power just to obtain it? Most who obtain power do so with the intent to wield it for whatever they please, be it petty or grand. Is obtaining power to wield it for a grand purpose something a loser would do? I don't know which historical figures you admire but they certainly obtained power in some way and then used it for some great purpose.
Obtaining power for a grand purpose isn't about power. That's my point. Power is then a (arguably) necessary evil, not an end in itself.
And yes, I believe there are power-driven people out there, and I believe they are pathological losers. "Petty" works too.
Maybe, just maybe, some of us don't admire people for how much power they wielded. I like Sophie Scholl for instance, and those who speak truth to power and stand against it to protect the vulnerable. Love, humanity, all that fluffy stuff is incommensurately more important to me.
Here's where I have trouble with your analysis: It completely fails to address classical and traditional notions of governance. Having a basic understanding of Plato and Aristotle, up through Aquinas and Botero, will aid you immensely in your critique of NRx. You shouldn't take enlightenment values like democracy, limited government, equality, and liberty for granted as those things which are good, and everything else as that which is power and therefore evil.
Good monarchs, good aristocrats, and yes, good democracies can and have existed. Traditional thinkers emphasize that good political leaders will be those who do not desire the position, but serve in it out of a sense of duty to those they serve. A good leader is one who loves his people, and is willing to die for them. Power is always there and must be wielded, we can only hope that it is wielded well. And the worldview of NRx fully shows that they will *not* wield it well, for they lack basic insight into what man is, what state is, and what the good is. But they aren't bad because they question democracy, accept hierarchy, and embrace the use of power.
Good grief. Surely White people can do better than this verbose overrated Jew, who never really says anything. Besides the time when, if ever, he was 'edgy' was 20 years ago.
Elements magazine - proving again its worth. It’s a pity there’s not more content translated into English.
Stick around. The overwhelming majority of my substack is translations from Nouvelle École, Éléments, and other French new right literature.
The other interesting thinker whose work is widely published in French only is Jean Claude Michea.
He wouldn’t qualify as new right, but represents a healthy tendency in social democratic politics.. a bit like Sahra Wagenknecht, but with a stronger philosophical foundation. I’ve seen a few old articles by Michael Walker referencing him, but virtually none of his own work.
Have you considered publishing Michea in English?
I've seen him referenced as well though I've not considered translating him.
Illuminating. Thanks!
Pathological losers inevitably tend towards power grabs…
https://open.substack.com/pub/heyslick/p/the-dark-elves-fallacy-neoreactionaries?r=4t921l&utm_medium=ios
Is everyone who desires power a pathological loser? What about those who have power? Are they losers as well?
Power for its own sake, yes.
As for your latter two questions, I guess it depends what the source of that power is?
I find it telling that the goal isn't to make power more fluid, but to ossify it at the point in the 'game' when it suits them.
The piece I shared is quite long and you may heartily disagree with it, but I expose my reasons there better than I ever could in a comment.
I do appreciate that you engage with my admittedly incisive comment. I firmly believe dialogue and the confrontation of ideas does us all good. Credit where credit is due!
"Power for its own sake, yes"
Does anyone obtain power just to obtain it? Most who obtain power do so with the intent to wield it for whatever they please, be it petty or grand. Is obtaining power to wield it for a grand purpose something a loser would do? I don't know which historical figures you admire but they certainly obtained power in some way and then used it for some great purpose.
Obtaining power for a grand purpose isn't about power. That's my point. Power is then a (arguably) necessary evil, not an end in itself.
And yes, I believe there are power-driven people out there, and I believe they are pathological losers. "Petty" works too.
Maybe, just maybe, some of us don't admire people for how much power they wielded. I like Sophie Scholl for instance, and those who speak truth to power and stand against it to protect the vulnerable. Love, humanity, all that fluffy stuff is incommensurately more important to me.
Weak af, I know...
Here's where I have trouble with your analysis: It completely fails to address classical and traditional notions of governance. Having a basic understanding of Plato and Aristotle, up through Aquinas and Botero, will aid you immensely in your critique of NRx. You shouldn't take enlightenment values like democracy, limited government, equality, and liberty for granted as those things which are good, and everything else as that which is power and therefore evil.
Good monarchs, good aristocrats, and yes, good democracies can and have existed. Traditional thinkers emphasize that good political leaders will be those who do not desire the position, but serve in it out of a sense of duty to those they serve. A good leader is one who loves his people, and is willing to die for them. Power is always there and must be wielded, we can only hope that it is wielded well. And the worldview of NRx fully shows that they will *not* wield it well, for they lack basic insight into what man is, what state is, and what the good is. But they aren't bad because they question democracy, accept hierarchy, and embrace the use of power.
Good grief. Surely White people can do better than this verbose overrated Jew, who never really says anything. Besides the time when, if ever, he was 'edgy' was 20 years ago.