Further reading on the relationship between Romanticism and national socialism (past or present), if anyone's interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkisch_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romant...l_developments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-volkisch_movements
Name me one where he's better.Originally Posted by dannno
There is no spoon.
That he hasn't flip flopped on.
I am the spoon.
That is an excellent correlation. One I agree with. I like to look at how the religious element of romanticism informs their view of government.
One of the mottos of romanticism was "everything is part and parcel of god". Of course human beings are part of everything, so they are part of God as well. This leads to a view of the absolute state and the divine state. Man in his greatest concentration is in the state. The state becomes divine.
It's an excellent correlation, one that fits the Trump movement perfectly.
Sounds like Hegel
"The march of God in the world, that is what the state is."
Course, Hegelianism wasn't a monolith; only some of his students became fascists.
...the others became communists.
Rothbard, "Hegel and the Romantic Age"
...unsurprisingly, Carlyle's very popular with the alt-right crowd.G.W.F. Hegel, unfortunately, was not a bizarre aberrant force in European thought. He was only one, if the most influential and the most convoluted and hypertrophic, of what must be considered the dominant paradigm of his age, the celebrated Age of Romanticism. In different variants and in different ways, the Romantic writers of the first half of the 19th century, especially in Germany and Great Britain, poets and novelists as well as philosophers, were dominated by a similar creatology and eschatology. It might be termed the "alienation and return" or "reabsorption" myth. God created the universe out of imperfection and felt need, thereby tragically cutting man, the organic species, off from his (its?) pre-creation unity with God. While this transcendence, this Aufhebung, of creation has permitted God and man, or God-man, to develop their (its?) faculties and to progress, tragic alienation will continue, until that day, inevitable and determined, in which God and man will be fused into one cosmic blob. Or, rather, being pantheists as was Hegel, until man discovers that he is man-God, and the alienation of man from man, man from nature, and man from God will be ended as all is fused into one big blob, the discovery of the reality of and therefore the merger into cosmic Oneness. History, which has been predetermined toward this goal, will then come to an end. In the Romantic metaphor, man, the generic "organism" of course, not the individual, will at last "return home." History is therefore an "upward spiral" toward Man's determined destination, a return home, but on a far higher level than the original unity, or home, with God in the pre-creation epoch.
The domination of the Romantic writers by this paradigm has been expounded brilliantly by the leading literary critic of Romanticism, M.H. Abrams, who points to this leading strain in English literature stretching from Wordsworth to D.H. Lawrence. Wordsworth, Abrams emphasizes, dedicated virtually his entire output to a "heroic" or "high Romantic argument," to an attempt to counter and transcend Milton's epochal poem of an orthodox Christian view of man and God. To counter Milton's Christian view of Heaven and Hell as alternatives for individual souls, and of Jesus's Second Advent as putting an end to history and returning man to paradise, Wordsworth, in his own "argument," counterpoises his pantheist vision of the upward spiral of history into cosmic unification and man's consequent return home from alienation.1 The eventual eschaton, the Kingdom of God, is taken from its Christian placement in heaven and brought down to earth, thereby as always when the eschaton is immanentized, creating spectacularly grave ideological social, and political problems...
The German Romantics were even more immersed in religion and mysticism than were their English counterparts. Hegel, Friedrich von Schelling, Friedrich von Schiller, Friedrich Hölderlin, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, were all theology students, most of them with Hegel at the University of Tubingen. All of them tried explicitly to apply religious doctrine to their philosophy. Novalis was immersed in the Bible. Furthermore, Hegel devoted a great deal of favorable attention to Boehme in his Lectures on the History of Philosophy, and Schelling called Boehme a "miraculous phenomenon in the history of mankind."
Moreover, it was Friedrich Schiller, Hegel's mentor, who was influenced by the Scot Adam Ferguson to denounce specialization and the division of labor as alienating and fragmenting man, and it was Schiller who influenced Hegel in the 1790s by coining the explicit concept of Aufhebung and the dialectic.2
In England, several decades later, the tempestuous conservative statist writer Thomas Carlyle paid tribute to Friedrich Schiller by writing a biography of that Romantic writer in 1825. From then on, Carlyle's writings were permeated with the Hegelian vision. Unity is good, and diversity or separateness is evil and diseased. Science as well as individualism is division and dismemberment. Selfhood, Carlyle ranted, is alienation from nature, from others, and from oneself. But one day there will come the breakthrough, the spiritual rebirth, led by world-historical figures ("great men") by which man will return home to a friendly world by means of the utter cancellation, the "annihilation of self (Selbst-todtung).
Finally, in Past and Present (1843), Carlyle applied his profoundly anti-individualist (and, one might add, anti-human) vision to economic affairs. He denounced egoism, material greed and laissez-faire, which, by fostering the severance of men from each other, had led to a world "which has become a lifeless other, and in severance also from other human beings within a social order in which "cash payment is … the sole nexus of man with man." In opposition to this metaphysically evil "cash nexus" lay the familial relation with nature and fellow men, the relation of "love." The stage was set for Karl Marx.3
Some Rothbard lectures on related topics:
https://mises.org/library/1-ideology...eories-history
https://mises.org/library/2-emergence-communism
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-29-2016 at 11:06 PM.
+repin which God and man will be fused into one cosmic blob. Or, rather, being pantheists as was Hegel, until man discovers that he is man-God, and the alienation of man from man, man from nature, and man from God will be ended as all is fused into one big blob, the discovery of the reality of and therefore the merger into cosmic Oneness. History, which has been predetermined toward this goal, will then come to an end. In the Romantic metaphor, man, the generic "organism" of course, not the individual, will at last "return home." History is therefore an "upward spiral" toward Man's determined destination, a return home, but on a far higher level than the original unity, or home, with God in the pre-creation epoch.
Rothbard is right on.
I haven't been on here since Ron Paul's run which proved to be both disheartening and a political revelation. It was the revolution we hoped for. 4 years later and another election cycle, I was watching Rand and Ben Carson this time around hoping the roots of revolution would widen and conquer.
I came back on here to see the climate of fellow political pioneers and visionaries, people who taught me so much about our system and to push myself to strive for a better country and way of life. I admit, I'm surprised to find my path has differed for some names on here. Though I can't know for certain what a Trump presidency will be, I can't imagine for the sake of liberty to allow an evil as formidable as his opponent to grasp the reins of our future. Politics has to be played and though Trump may not be the all around "ideal guy", I don't think anyone could argue that the path towards liberty will be easier survived from his presidency then hers. We've seen her and her kind so many times before, we've been watching this path of decline. Now here is a person who has brought things to light about corruption that I haven't heard any candidate touch on before, things that we were furious over when "our guy" was fighting for us. Here's this guy fighting those same demons and those same elements that discouraged me from giving a screw about politics for the past 4 years.
Trump hasn't defined himself as a politician yet. That's a scary thought in it's own right. He's not sure of some positions, he might change his mind on something but he seems to generally care about the benefit of all of us. He gets what the position of government is supposed to be. He's not looking for a position for fame and money, he already has it. He's not looking for a political career. He wasn't primed and polished for presidency. He's a guy, a smart man and a resourceful man, a family man who's too open and too human at times for his own good. Who can cast the first stone in that regard? If he can keep his integrity he'll listen. If he's smart he'll listen too. He didn't get to where he is by stepping on others. He listened to others, he took their advice and took their help and he returned the gratitude by sharing success. It's a chance, maybe even a fantasy at this point in American politics but if we actually had the chance and didn't take it, shame on us if we instead handed it to certain death.
I still can't believe she ran. I still can't believe she got the nomination. I don't believe for a second she has any majority of support or votes. remember Ron's rallies? we outnumbered everyone. We were pumped, we were winning. We know what hope is and what the enemy looks like. I don't see an enemy in Trump. The system is rigged, there's only two choices until things change. Ron knew it too. This is how things change, one step at a time. The corruption is outted. Maybe we'll get some sensible policies back. Maybe the media will take the people serious again? Maybe the establishment will back down. Maybe they'll get wiser too. No matter what, freedom is going to be a fight and I don't knock anyone for their choice in taking a stand, just as long as they finally do take one.
Bush 2000.
The epitome of libertarian populism
Ron Paul said that Trump was better than Hillary on the Fed. He also seems to have a much more restrained foreign policy. He also has better economic policies, overall. Subsidizing open immigration is leading toward a more leftist voting block.
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
"You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
"When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."
The entire Neo-Con team is openly against Trump & backing Clinton.
This makes me think his non-intervention talk is real.
...as one old wag recently put it, 'this election is just like every other election i've witnessed...pathetic republican and democrat cheerleaders contorting logic and decency to excuse themselves for affirming this putrid goddamned political order...it is fanta$y/delu$ion to believe that trump, clinton, OR ANY OTHER REPUBLICRAT, has any idea$ or inclination$ that are a threat to thi$ mi$erable exi$ting order....get ready to meet the new republicrat boss, dumbasses...'
...DON'T VOTE FOR/AFFIRM REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS!!!...IT ONLY ENCOURAGES THE CRETINS...
Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 10-30-2016 at 07:05 AM.
Yep, he hasn't flip flopped on any of that
I am the spoon.
@Dangergirl
You are part of the normal 56% I talked about in the OP.
There is a small contingent of purists on RPF, I have 6 neg reps from them on this thread only, that refuse to see our perspective.
Such a shame we should be allies instead we have become idealogical foes.
But I really do question those that say Rand Paul perspective is totally wrong when he is the one actually out there fighting in the political trenches.
I would love to be fly on the wall to hear him and his Dad discuss this.
Last edited by ProBlue33; 10-30-2016 at 09:12 AM.
Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos
Trump is the single least libertarian nominee in the history of the Republican Party. That is indisputable. He is a war mongering, anti-civil liberties, socialist, strongman. trump is the anti-Ron Paul in almost every respect. The only argument for Trump is that Supreme Court is likely to lose a few justices. It would be bad if Clarence Thomas retired and Hillary appointed someone. Trump will likely appoint slightly better judges just because he has an R behind his name. Though that isn't clear. If he thought it were politically advantageous to appoint progressives, he would do so in a heartbeat.
But in a choice between Hillary and Trump, Hillary is far superior from a liberty perspective as long as Republicans hold the House and have a near 50/50 split in the Senate so legislation can be easily killed. Divided government is almost always good. It has been good the last 6 years of Obama and it was a good thing the last 6 years of Clinton. The sequester got passed under Obama and welfare reform and balanced budgets got passed under Clinton. The worst would be a progressive like Trump moving the Republican Party to the left and making it politically difficult to espouse free market views. And if there is economic turmoil, or just a correction in the stock market, Trump will get blamed and by his party association capitalism will get blamed.
Last edited by Krugminator2; 10-30-2016 at 09:32 AM.
But in a choice between Hillary and Trump, Hillary is far superior from a liberty perspective
WRONG !!!!
And Rand agrees with me too
But then again somebody who was late to party(Mr. 2014) wouldn't get it anyways, it figures.
Last edited by ProBlue33; 10-30-2016 at 10:01 AM.
Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos
The only people who believe that a Hillary neocon presidency would be superior to a Trump presidency are either:
A: grossly uninformed, or
B: an advocate of the neocon agenda
You're a Trumpslurper, of course you think the 56% who voted for Trump on some random site are normal.
I am the spoon.
Funny that the Trumpslurpers Smitty and ProBlue pretend we have something wrong with us, yet they support someone they can't even defend. Well, logically anyway, with honesty.
I am the spoon.
At least as normal as someone who thinks that John F. Kennedy's name lends credibility on a libertarian forum.
Who said anything about that? You're the only one.
I am the spoon.
I hate to break it to you but this election round it's like voting between Darth Vader and Darth Sidious, when you want Yoda to win but he is retired.
One of them will win and you have to either not vote, or pick the one that will be the least harmful to the country.
You can write in Yoda if it makes you feel better.....
Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos
I may be writing in Putin. Hopefully it'll help me achieve orgasm.
I am the spoon.
I'm not convinced in the slightest that Trump would appoint Supreme Court Justices that value freedom.
That's the same old argument that people make year after year. And we keep on getting the same evil year after year. When are you going to wake up?
Same. Why would a NYC Dem do such a thing?
I am the spoon.
Depends if you think progress can be made against what you hate and despise about our current political system or not, to me that is more important.
If you have 2 political foes, one you agree with 33% of what they say and do, are against 67% of what they say and do. The next one same thing but only it's agree with 3% and disagree on 97%.
Then there is the one your agree with 97% and disagree with 3% but they aren't even on the ballot you have write them in, they literally have no chance to win.
Well the pragmatic logical voter knows what they should do, but will emotional loyalty to the political past stop them........?
Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos
That's the same old argument restated. Yet year after year, we keep losing our liberties. When are you going to wake up?
That site endorsed Trump early on. Anyone who still visits it and is not a Trump supporter quite frankly confuses me. It's like saying the Ron Paul Forums was polled and they mostly support Ron Paul.
The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.
-Tao Te Ching, Section 57
Wait, you said the same thing, somebody was telling me about these new posting bots being used on the net that have hacked old accounts, and are being used this election cycle, apparently their ability to formulate fresh arguments is very limited.
They say the same exact thing over and over again.
Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos
There's been an ongoing action on this forum to ban anyone who spoke favorably of Trump since the election season began. Of course, the forum owners have the right to do so. But it turns the place into an echo chamber which isn't representative of what's occurring in the political world.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us