The New Paganism and the Rise of the Nietzscheans

hello everyone and welcome to a brand new series the politics of paganism I'm Alex sttinley here with Dr Andrew Jones hello and kind of the uh the the thesis of what we're trying to explore here with uh politics of paganism is the problem in modernity that there is we could say a kind of Rise of old Pagan political forms a rise of old political uh Pagan political problems that you can see in the ancient world that you can see in the Greeks and the Romans uh and what we're trying to provide with this series and we're going to be going slowly through a lot of texts is what what is the world for the Pagan or what is the world prior to Christ what is their what is their view of man what is their view of nature what is their uh how do their political forms develop uh what problems do they encounter what is the we could say the ultimate end of the city is going to be a big thing we discuss um what is law like all all of these these uh difficulties and how the Pagan regimes and uh pagan people experience life and and ultimate ends and then as a kind of reflection on modernity how moving past Christianity those things start to resurrect yeah where do we see them how do they how does this help us understand the modern world in which we live right because exactly for that reason that a lot of these problems paradoxes sort of traps that the pagans find themselves in We Now find ourselves in in in versions of those things it's not identical of course but like Echoes or resemblances oh man this is back this sort of thing is back yeah and your conversation with uh John Daniel Davidson which I know a lot of people really enjoyed uh that was kind of the argument of his book right is Pagan America it's this kind of um when you lose Christianity you inevitably move into a pagan mode of of Life basically that the the kind of secular dream that we can have all the Christian trappings of society all of the Christian um kind of niceties and pleasantries of you being you know loving one's neighbor and all that type of stuff that over time if it doesn't have a kind of foundation in Christianity if it doesn't have a a rootedness in um you know the salvific power of the cross in the church yeah quite literally the sacramental life the the the uh you know Revelation and Grace like the real thing yeah if if you don't have the real thing you're going to get the real thing of paganism or or revert to something yeah I mean we have to have a broad understanding of what we mean by paganism right I mean that what paganism itself is not is not simple and homogeneous there's many different forms and different ways but different ways it manifests it has its own historical Cycles its own Transitions and Evolutions within it but there are but what's interesting about the Ancients is when we go back and read them Plato AR is that they they had already perceived a great a great amount of that dynamism within paganism and already sort of given us scheme a scheme with which to to see it to understand it what the options are how they move and those those forms that they describe to us are um useful in different historical cultural contexts like we can see you know we can look at the AZ text today and see some of the the some of the Insight that Plato was explaining to us in the Republic mhm right you can see and that and that um so so what we're not trying to say is what we're trying to argue I think is that there's a certain set of problems that Humanity faces as a political animal especially in our situation after the fall and these problems are big and complicated and variable but there is a certain consistency to these problems and given given time this this may sound sort of um too too simplistic but I think my study of history tells me there's something really to this is that given time the the the attempted solutions to those problems and those paradoxes there are certain strategies that win out right and and and so Ascend right and so you have certain historical Dynamics where you see certain trajectories that seem to be reoccurring and the reason why I I mean we don't have to you don't have to posit any sort of magical mystical thing here you can say no there's survival strategies it's like just like in the wild in the animals right there are certain survival strategies that work better than others and over time they win out mhm man as political animal in in society wants to have like like certain we could say regime forms or certain modes of living in the city went out over others things just don't work and so and so it it has you get certain trajectories that are that are visible mhm right C certain movements and so in in the uh the the you know the the text we're going to be discussing so uh we start with Augustine city of God so and Augustine really is the one that that sets up a a kind of narrative as we're we're taking it between the Christian and the Pagan right that there is as you were saying similarities between the different regimes between the the mode of life of the pre-christian man the man without Revelation and between what Christianity brings which is uh the church right and salvation through the through the church and through Christ and that's going to be the kind of defining let's say theological narrative that that uh informs how we view the Pagan texts right how we read the Republic how we read Aristotle's politics is that uh there's a kind of closed world that Augustine presents where uh man under sin uh isn't able to totally participate with what what he was created to created for which is participation with God that there's some type of break or original sin or or a fall that occurs and that part of that is in the construction of the city a kind of uh inferior morality or a uh a construction of a morality that serves the regime or a law that serves the regime yeah myth myth law morals all of those sorts of things are become human constructions right and there and there there Echoes or participations in to various degrees true the truth right true law true morality True Justice that is not totally eliminated from the human nature even after the fall but they become like you said they become twisted and ordered in a different way in order to serve human power um which Augustine says adds to demonic the Demonic powers to serve those forces as opposed to to serve um the pursuit of human fulfillment human happiness and communion with God so so it's a Augustin presents us with a complex argument but but one of the the basis of it is that human construction of Worlds that in which we live political worlds social worlds worlds in a sort of phenomenological sense is is the reality of both the CI of man and the City of God and and and so the question is always is it is it ascending or descending right for Augustine so we'll and now one of the things that we'll do is is is is show how in this conversation with Augustine especially and then actually throughout the series as we talk about the pagans is how the Christian alternative or the Christian I hesitate to say solution because it makes it sound like it's a it's like a that it's like a technology or a trick yeah is um is not that it's a superior human construction it's not that it's a good philosophy or a good a methology that works really well or all of those sorts of things if to say that sort that sort of argument about Christianity is to is exactly to to make the sorts of analysis that the pagans make about political forms you see so you're what you're doing is once you start going down that road you're already operating within the pagan mode of analysis right and and what we're which which is which we can do and we can explore that and like see what happens if we try to do that but what the the difference Christianity makes the argument we're going to make is is that it's true I mean that it really happened like it historically happened and and things are different now than they were if it's just another philosophy in service of a regime meaning Christianity is one of the options out there right Nation EXT it's stoicism it's you know whatever all the modern ideologies whatever I mean that's just one of the options and then we can sit about saying whether or not it's the best one whether or not it's a good one whether or not it works well whether or not all that which is which is typical of a lot of 19th century and 20th Century conservatism and other kind of you know where you just sort of argue that it works really well and it's useful utility of Christianity but our claim and Austin's claim is this historical like it is real it is real that that uh the claim of Christianity is not we got the best philosophy around uh and and this is you know we'll get to n he attacks Christianity as as just being that but really that it's a uh an actual in the person of Christ a historical event of the Incarnation in his suffering and dying of atonement in the resurrection in living in New Life in in Christ and that the church is the historical people United to Christ as the body of Christ and that they are a historical it is a historical event that the church progresses through time in the world and as you were saying that and renders possible that which was previously impossible and there's a very the rules have changed the the rules have changed fundamentally right right and also Augustine's very clear that what we're not saying here is that the church is this perfect you know like perfect uh Enclave society that like makes its way through the world in a kind of like Protestant sense of it it's it's actually that the city of God and city of man is not only present historically in this kind of grand narrative but also in in in the individual Christian as well to intering intermingled and confused at every point is the way Augustine will talk about it at every Point like in from the from the depths of the individual soul to the to the macro politics of like Geo geopolitical strategy right and and to provide a kind of teolog of it it's it's that the Source The Source Gustin present of the city of God and city of man is the city of God begins at creation it begins in this movement you know like creating man to be United to God and that the city of man begins in the fall so it begins when man makes himself the creator of good and evil or the determiner of values the determiner of his own Final End that man will determine his own final end and it begins in Cain and Abel and so these these uh these that the final end of the city of God is participation with God forever in heaven right and the City of man ends in the destruction of sin and and death so okay so all that out there with augusten uh and then we we dive straight into Plato's Republic and in a certain way Plato you know he takes up through different characters uh a lot of what came previous ly um in Socratic presocratic philosophy and and brings these characters in so you get a a very wide representation of of um you know political thought yeah various options right that are available and and what we want to argue I I think on uh you know reading the P the reading the Republic reading Aristotle's politics is that there's these uh conundrums or problems or circles that end up being made so we talked about in the beginning the um you know the problem of is this true Justice or is this human construction so that problem never really gets resolved right is this just uh in in the city is the law that the city presents is that true Justice or is that just someone's law that's trying to serve their own power and can you solve that problem is there even such thing as Justice is there a such thing as true Justice right I mean or is Justice never anything other than the law of the city these sorts of questions and the character through simus in the Republic is kind of the main uh you know uh proponent of this that laws whatever is in the interest of the stronger MH and if that's so then you should assert your own will as Justice itself like you should be the Tyrant so that so when the philosopher encounters the city he sees this opposition between construction and and uh what he perceives to be true Justice and so what he has to do is overthrow that false Justice right he he feels the need to to become the Tyrant right right yeah so those I mean those sorts of questions the questions of inequality I think are reoccurring um that human beings are are not the same obviously it have different levels of ability and how to make sense of that right so then you get the question is there some sort of is there some sort of social order in which inequalities are inequalities between men or groups of men are are all kind of harmoniously ordered in such a way that they all achieve their fulfillment or potential from wherever their mode of of of being within the hierarchy is is that possible or is it always the case that that human inequality result results in um slave master Dynamics right these sorts of you know and but the reality that human beings are different that human beings have various amounts of capability is is the problem that then has to be grappled with and the and the pagans do so right do you ever actually get out of the Master Slave exactly problem yeah exactly doesn't seem like it right uh and but is there True Justice that that's the question I I feel that that that pushes the Republic along is absolutely even in the IND of this are is there real Justice right and we talk about the uh the philosopher king which Plato's very famous for this idea of um the king being uh philosophical understanding truth and the the difficul is there because it seems as though the philosopher king is just inventing a myth he you know you have the allegory of the cave in which um the the philosopher leaves the cave sees the True Light and then goes back into the cave and but he has to go back into the cave and start making other images for the people there and and so we discussed the problem of myth like even if the philosopher knows True Justice it's the tragedy of the city that he has to communicate True Justice in images of Justice in false Justice ultimately yeah if I was going to say ultimately in falsehoods right I think I think that's the case for Plato but we but like you said we'll talk a great deal about that and and then and then the question is well is the myths I mean one of the the questions that we need to contend with is is there a strict competition between mythical and and trans Transcendent like is it the case that that simply because Justice is is it is it possible that Justice as a in its mythical form is the manner in which transcendant Justice is always manifest so do we have to do we have to choose right or is there a way of understanding them is understanding Mythic Justice as a participation in Transcendent Justice and that then then we're creating a very complex understanding of the social order right so the myth actually allows you to participate in True Justice is it possible that that is it POS is it possible to have the myth that allows you to participate in True Justice or let's say and and and we're going to get to this but like with Christianity it it is the case that it's Revelation and Revelation as such given God giving us uh revealing himself to us that doesn't mean all of us know exactly God's Essence and the whole nature of History right it's it's the case that what we we're participating in something that's leading us higher so Christianity sees that problem and recognizes the the nature of the person who knows in in the mode of the knower that we we we Ascend to uh higher knowledge and a higher a higher end that is always Beyond it's never achieved it's always pushed Beyond further mhm God is infinite and we're fite yeah yeah so so so like you're saying I mean the I think the Christian understanding then then argues for the compatibility of construction of a construction a construction idea of justice and a Transcendent concept of Justice to be held at the same time right now and that I think Plato Intimates in that he he attempts to move in that direction but can't find his way to it I think we'll we'll talk about mhm and and ultimately you know Christianity fulfills what what Plato was longing for in you know part of what we're going to argue and that that last uh episode on on uh the Republic is going to be on regime forms so you know famously like the uh democracy aristocracy uh tyranny oligarchy that Plato presents this big circle that um you have a kind of uh initial AR aristocrat regime that you have this this um this movement of kind of warrior class into a society present themselves as Gods uh but as they become integrated with the people they're ruling over inevitably they end up just being oligarchs just uh wealthy people within that and so you have a kind of descending from aristocracy to oligarchy into democracy after the wealth becomes more dispersed and the people demand more and ultimately leads toogy demagogy and tyranny because then you just have one who says I will represent all of you like you fight too much with each other I I will be the one to unify you all together and then but in a tyranny it's actually the weakest form mhm uh because the people are opposed to each other so they can't they don't want to fight on behalf of each other and the city Falls fall to another another Warrior band of aristocrats and we start all over and I think it's it's really in the regime forms that we see uh this this uh that the circle we're seeing Injustice that it the conundrum never gets resolved even if you create the the best myth regime forms like really Nails it because it's like okay we've talked about the just City and now we're talking about how we never get there it always ends up in this kind of cycle of regime one to the other history just progresses no matter what perfect regime you think you're going to create it's not going to last right exactly maybe we'll have it for a short period maybe it'll be really cool yeah but the weaknesses or the holes the paradoxes within it always ultimately manifest themselves and then you slip into the next form yeah but for Plato that's not a recommendation to Injustice right like that's not that's not like oh okay well it's all it's all meaningless like it's all Injustice like even in his Pagan context he uh he sees that that living True Justice actually produces its own benefits yeah and I think he says just because the regime forms inevitably flow into each other in a big circle that doesn't mean that we have no ground to judge between them like it is the case that the aristocratic regime is better than the tyrannical okay so there is there so Justice is being participated in True Justice right right even if it's only being participated in in this sort of uh constructed trap in this kind of inferior mode yep yeah and then we move into Aristotle Aristotle's politics and I'll probably throw that more to you because you know a lot more on Aristotle than I do but um you know similar problems are presented there there's yeah he he disagrees with Plato on a number of areas we have this kind of um uh this like middle regime like you're aiming towards the middle class in the regime um you know at the very beginning the problem of slavery that they're they are natural slaves I'm sure we'll get into that think that's the heart of aristan uh politics I think understanding understanding what he means by natural slaves and natural Masters is is the heart of understanding what what he's doing and and I think so so yeah Aristotle will be interesting because I think the direction will take it is is a is a less naive reading of Aristotle I mean I I I I I like to read Aristotle I do read Aristotle as uh one who's attempting it's not just a philosophical Exposition in a sort of abstract sense but it's political philosophy as active in politics so what is I think Aristotle is is attempting to apply a lot of what he learns from Plato in in in the con in the attempt to construct a city that will last or that could survive the situations he finds himself in historically which is of course the rise of Alexander the Great and all of this right his father um and so and so there's a certain activism in Aristotle and we so that so it's interesting then to read him and to see oh what what he's asserting to be nature is is actually we can we can read this as being the the myth the myth that must be believed to be nature in order for the regime that he has in mind to survive so the assertion that it is nature is to be taken you know is to be taken in a political activism form way so that so you have you have um it's like it's like Leo Strauss will talk about some that that political philosophy is there's two ways of understanding it there's there's the philosophy of politics and then there's philosophy that is political meaning that it is engaged in politics right and Aristotle is doing both so he's interesting yeah yeah because the ma Macedonian aristocracy you know had the potential to take over the Greek City St the time and he you know had leanings towards the macedonians and so so it would make sense that in applying I mean because part of it with Plato is yeah you really do have to have myth right it's not an option for Plato it's not like oh well you can have a regime with no myth no yeah so I mean I think we like to imagine this with secularism that you can just have everyone choose their own you know secular liberalism your own autonomy there's no there's no overarching myth that holds the whole uh together but there is right like Plato is not giving you an option there and so when we're encountering ing Aristotle you know there there perhaps there actually is an attempt to in in the natural slave and the idea of the uh you know marriage there that's presented there in the household um the political ruler and um and importantly he he very he very much develops the regime forms uh like to great detail and talks about how uh you know the middle has to be in order to preserve uh the regime the middle has to be uh very substantial between rulers and slaves so there there's not like a there's not possibility for a Revolt at the same degree so um yeah there's a lot there in Aristotle we're going to be tackling any more you want to add from Aristotle no I mean I I I I I think we can save it for those discussions yeah I think that that would be worthwhile yeah that's a good introduction there uh I don't know if we're going to be into into breeding like aquinus trees and law or any of that we'll see where we get to maybe maybe a little Cicero maybe we could do oh yeah yeah like that for for our listeners this is uh that's plenty of reading if you want to read along so uh got selections from Augustine city of God uh Plato's Republic which took me like three or four months to read again just so long you read it just sentence by sentence yeah yeah it takes forever uh it's great it's wonderful you feel like you want to live Justice after reading it so you should uh Aristotle's politics and we'll see where we're going from there and just to kind of round off and you know for the latter half of this discussion uh kind of the reasons or the why why we decided to do this in in to begin with and uh it it really came about at least for me with uh paying attention to C Alam maru's or baps selective breeding and the birth of philosophy his doctoral dissertation and for me it it I'll have to say like I'm I'm no Greek expert actually in in college it was didn't really pay much attention to the Greek philosophy I was much more interested in in modernism postmodernism you know postmodern philosophy and and dealing with those problems from a Christian perspective uh but I always like n like I love N I think he's great fun uh you know like many young adults I read him when I was 18 19 yeah right and and thought wow this is crazy so when I when I read um C Al Maru uh Bap his doctoral distri he is picking up on something in in the Greeks that I think legitimately has been neglected which is what we're trying to describe in the Pagan element that there is to some degree in in a kind of Christian reading you can just read Plato and Aristotle and just like get politics and get ethics in a Christian mode and you just no natural law or something like that yeah it's a sort of falsification of them isn't it christianization of them like as if as if Socrates was a Chris Christian yeah as if he was running around like he was just waiting and that's true like that read is all over the place it's very excuse me it's very typical among a certain Branch a certain style of conservatism you know where you where you read the Ancients as if they were as if they were Christians good moralist Christians you and as if nature that they're talking about is just the natural law that we then get in neoism or something yeah and so I I read you know his dissertation he did it at Yale you know sometime in the early ODS or something like that and um and what he's arguing is that uh in in Plato and in the ancient Greeks there is uh that there's a an opposition between nature and law or fousey and namas and that that opposition is the fundamental Insight of the ancient Greeks that they realize that there is nature that they can um they can um they can understand the philosopher understands that all the weak convention uh that the regime creates is false and where that ends up is that the philosopher has a duty and even a an obligation to take tyrannical power and that that was present in the presocratic so you have you know these uh he he he talks extensively about pendar and these kind of Victory poetry um of this glorious Tyrant and this this type of thing but also he argues as found in Plato in uh Plato's gorgos the dialogue gorgos with the character calicles who very clearly argues there's this opposition and uh Alam Maru argues that there uh is an esoteric secret recommendation of tyranny in Plato in the gorgos that calicles wins the argument against Socrates right and that really the philosopher should become the Tyrant and that was shocking like when I read it I was like well that doesn't seem like the standard Christian reading of play course yeah right right there there seems to be something else going on there um and that kind of got me me interested in in in trying to understand the Pagan context and what actually is the Christian reading there and I don't know you know yeah I mean I've had a similar a similar motivation here uh where the nians um I guess what do we we've been calling them like Neo nans yeah sure so I which I think is fine but bat being in a lot of ways the the ring leader or the leader of that movement um it it clearly gaining ground in especially among young intelligent men right um at universities and around in general that it's becoming increasingly um the sort of Nan understanding is increasingly popular and and and and it it is based on what what you just described is like a repudiation of the pious Christian ized reading of the Ancients and a return to the Ancients as the pagans that they are but then to do so which I agree with that move right definitely like you said like it's it's very welcome um that move is very welcome and and the sort of deconstruction or annihilation of the christianized version of the Ancients I I welcome that um and we've got to see what the problems they were dealing with on their face and not pretend like they had the solutions cuz they didn't but they had great insights but that but the the the what I what I've become troubled by is the the nian um the proposal of the of a nian solution to modernity that is based upon a certain this a certain reading of the Ancients and that the the the thing that's troubling about it is I think it misunderstands well there's many things but it misunderstands profoundly the the the actual um the actual problems that the pagans are are in enduring or and going through and the and and actually the insights that they had about their own problems and then the solutions that Christianity actually bring right and that and so there's a there's a there's a massive mischaracterization of Christianity that's that's present in n and in the neonian where Christianity is unrecognizable like whatever it is they're talking about is not Christianity historical Christianity in fact what they're what they're talking about is really modernity yes right um and and mass society and and bureaucracy and the domination of these myths of egalitarianism and these myths of uh of rule of law and all all the myths that underwrite the modern the modern political social economic construction and the the the the irony in all this is that their right of course to attack all that um but to see that as Christianity or as some how tied directly to Historic Christianity is to misunderstand I think profoundly what's actually going on because what you're actually seeing in modernity is a return not it's not the playing out of Christianity it's a it's actually the repudiation of Christianity and the return to the problems of the pagans so it's like you you you you can you can and like we talked about a moment ago when you were talking about regime forms the pagans know that some regime forms are better than others so to to to look at our our society and see the most sort of vulgar and and and really kind of gross and ugly uh form of say a democratic um tyrannical regime merging into the demagog the demagogic um and to say the aristocratic uh Warrior band honor-based thing is better it's like well yeah that's right that's what Plato thought that's what everyone thought that they they were they we had these Cycles of regimes and if we're if we're in the Pagan if we're in the Pagan trap then it is the case that the aristocratic regime is superior to the Democratic one right and so this is something the so the nians the neonian who see they they they see the enemy and then they they they they privilege or desire the the return or the construction of what the what the Ancients recognized as being a superior form and so there's a um what am I trying to say here what I'm trying to say is there's a it it almost signifies the thoroughness of our of our abandonment of the Christian world view that the critics the in a lot of ways the most ascendant critics like maybe that's not right maybe my vision is skewed but it seems like the the the the branch of criticism of the modern world the Contemporary world that is has a lot of Vitality so to speak in it is this neonian one which is a criticism that occurs within the Pagan worldview right so it's like the the we don't even have we don't even have the Christian critique of the Pagan being represented anymore right now it's pagans against pagans right and pagans fight with pagans constantly right like that's not like yeah yeah I mean pagans think each other are horrible and they think they're each other's gods are false and they think each other's myths are degrading and they I mean pagans think all this stuff about each other so one brand brch of pagans going after the other is what I have been observing and that there's a lot of people especially like I said young men who are opposed to the Contemporary regime the current regime and then see in the neonian the opposition to it and they're right that that is opposition to it it's just opposition doesn't go anywhere it's just it's just an opposition that's just going to get you into a trap that you'll never that you'll never dig your way out of mhm and we've talked about it being you know this opposite there's a lot of similarities and and it's funny because the reason I can say I I love n and I've learned a lot from Bap because I don't think they're actually arguing with Christianity right they're not they're not actually hitting on the point when they do they sound foolish like when they when they attempt to to argue with Christianity they reveal how how how little they understand about it yeah they basically yeah which is which is a which is a um a really sort of embarrassing thing because because like you said enjoy I read n a lot i' I've read I keep find myself reading Bap even though I I I I get bothered by him but the there's something there's something um uh unreasonable I think or or um uh I don't even know what the right is maybe maybe even maybe even you go as far as Despicable to say to to attacking your own tradition right because these guys are not Germanic tribal Warriors they're not Bronze Age Greeks like that's not us right that that's that's a that's not the same culture that's not who we that's not who we are we we as as the inheritors of Christendom right are um are are are are a civilization that has been built on Christianity deep Christianity and and to attack it without putting the effort into understanding it right and and and I think is a is is highly um uh irresponsible and um and like I said really ultimately despicable totally it's your own people that you're attacking here and for people who are so into identity identity politics and racial stuff and all the kind of stuff they get into to attack your own people with a level of ignorance and vitriol that that is um embarrassing is something that needs to be called down and not even the care to distinguish it between like wokeism and just be like it's like it's like no it's not and there's there's a there's uh you know a thousand years of very very deep um reflection and thought and social construction of a civilization that we are the inheritors of that deserves um deserves to not be dismissed as H you know like you said as just like oh that's just that's just you know platonism for the masses that's just woke wokeism or whatever in an earlier form it's like no that's not true yes it's the shallowness of a troll it's just not true it's trolling it's trolling yeah yeah and so and so that now the reason why I think it can it can somewhat um strike some people as true or or like Rings true to people is because Christianity has become so degraded uh and so misrepresented so uh falsified in our own in our own world in the modern world I mean as it became um turned into moralism turned into political ideology turned into therapeutic self-help nonsense turned I mean it's been it's been repackaged and utilized in so many degraded ways over the course of modernity that and then we're entering into a phase where the only form of Christianity that anyone really encounters is one of those degraded forms that it's it becomes easy for for young intelligent impressionable people who don't to just dismiss it like they like they know what it is right and there's not and that's understandable and not totally wrong I mean like the form of Christianity that they encounter like the form of Christianity I think that n was attacking in the 19th century uh Europe is is for the most part corrupt right and not and not worthy of uh embracing mhm right yeah not even worthy of real study or consideration you just lump it all together you know and say we we critique it and and we talked also about how there's there's a kind of uh similarity between like there wouldn't be this kind of neonian Mo moment if there wasn't a similar one on the left with uh whatever wokeism this like Ultra Progressive ultr Progressive identity political uh like anti-racism this like radical egalitarian kind of movement in the I ities um of which B went to Yale which is funny uh you know that that uh as as you described it was you know on the left there's this uh everything's constructed everything is power everything is uh you know pressing the weak and we're trying to work to deconstruct those things for the weak for the people whose identities are being destroyed and stuff and then you have this neonian far right Uber MCH male like we're going to be the powerful ones and it's like oh okay so you're just taking the opposite reaction from what they're doing you you you moress accept the the entire premise and then just flip it on his head right so and so you you become it's like it's it's like a joke it's like a Babylon be joke right that like that the the the people who hate each other directly like I think there actually is this joke in the B I think they have this article where it's like the hard alt-right type guy is talking to the super wokester and they're debating but it turns out they agree on everything yeah right right like they they actually their whole worldview their whole like understanding of how Society functions their whole thing is basically the same and they and and it's just they who would they want to win MH right and and so it's like okay that there's a fight that's occurring within a frame um a frame of identity politics a frame of race Theory a frame a frame of social construction of reality um total social construction of reality there's a there's a fight that's Ring within that frame but um I recommend getting out of that frame like not living in it right busting out and so I think a lot of the the neonian movement is is is a movement that one of the reasons why it's accessible to people is it doesn't demand that much thought right like you all like basically the way youve already been taught to see the world is the way that it asks you to also see the world yeah absolutely yeah and maybe we could um talk about vitalism here you know it's like okay so part of the nian mode is that you know all constructed good and evil is all of Good and Evil is constructed you have to break out of it you have to affirm your own will you have to do things that are life affirming life preserving you know uh and and bat picks up on that this kind of vitalism has been a a term but what strikes me is uh it's an aesthetic thing like it it's not not actually he doesn't there's no no basis for this kind of vital life thing it's just whatever you think is life affirming like there's no it's it's it's individualized so whatever a person thinks this is life affirming for me this will to power you know right um yeah that's right I mean I think that there's that you get into a sort of circle because if you adopt the approach then what you believe to be life affirming in yourself what you believe you know to make you feel powerful and alive and the the um you know the will to power as the uh the discharge of strength right and whatever makes you feel that way part of that is asserting it to be the case right it to be true so um so you get into a sort of a sort of circular trap where the aesthetic that the neonin are advancing is from a philosophical point of view just one among men I don't even know why I mean I don't find it very interesting I mean the whole like bodybuilder thing and all that kind of thing I'm not really interested in it um I'm interested in a different different direction I think yeah but the um that that aesthetic if you part of embracing it is to say that everyone who doesn't is wrong MH right okay well I mean that that that's a that's a sort of a sophist sophistry a sort of trap um vogan refers to n in this regard as a intellectual SW swindler that like you can't you can't like the the system itself precludes or denies the ability to argue with it MH right okay and um and so if you when you find yourself up against those sorts of opponents then I find that pointing that out so the people who are engaging with it can see that we're in an intellectual swindler Swindle here and then pointing out that the aesthetic actually isn't that appealing right like the these are moves that should be that should be made should be made that the vitalism isn't actually life affirming yeah yeah it that it it and and importantly uh that there's a rhetorical thing going on here right because it is aesthetic there's no grounding he's not trying to convince you of a philosophical grounding for the good that everyone should should be upon right it because it's aesthetic it ends up it's all throughout the writing style in in Bron mindset like it's a lot of it's flattery right we've talked about this flatter gross flattery yeah so you can read n and think and he's describing these future philosophers that are going to come about these these higher men and all this stuff and you can like you don't realize but you're being flattered right like totally I everyone everyone reading it it's like I'm going to be the one that's the reason why it's so appealing to 18-year-old boys cuz he's like come down with me into the secret dark places do you dare do you dare to go against your mother and come with me to the places where truth blah blah all this kind of like you the higher men will come down I mean it's just so the flattery is so thick that it's it's hard for me to even read it without thinking he's making fun of his reader I mean he's Mo he's mocking them right that this is a troll you know um but yeah I mean that's that's that's so present in n and obviously in in Bap as well yeah I mean he he's a Twitter guy he's a Twitter guy he's got hund something thousand followers and it is it is one long flattery thing and actually that's something we've seen in PL right like if you want to get this demagogic type power you have to uh like it's the people reading Bronze Age mindset are not going to be these Uber mench right like if you if you knew it was Will To Power if you actually had power right let's just imagine you actually had power do you need to read someone telling you it's it's power right like you like you to gain power or whatever like to me it seems the intended a a of a nitian flattery is someone without power or who's not actually life affirming who who imagines themselves to be that right the whole thing the whole like L housee thing and all that kind of stuff they talk about is writing to men who are oppressed by women okay let's unpack that I me I don't want to go too far down that road but it's like but it's like you feel like you're being dominated by women you are being dominated by women but you're the Overman you the Glorious one who who if you just follow follow me into the Bronze Age mindset then the women will be throwing themselves at your feet I mean it's so it's there's a certain embarrassment to it right where you're reading like right like I feel sorry for these guys no I I I I right like yeah absolutely I don't mean to just like sort of mock I don't mean to mock I because there's truth and there's there's there's ways of understanding what what's trying to be said and there's things worth worth engaging but there's also a sort of pitifulness to it yeah it's kind of pathetic yeah but yeah and and I and I what what okay that they're popular that this kind of H pathetic flattery is is is is being had I think really does touch on a a a real problem right and and a real social problem right and I and I think the internet's a very large part of this the whole just like touch grasset off the internet yeah would actually be helpful for a lot of these people um it's when you're always online and you're always battling wokers and you're trying to troll people and you have your Anon on Twitter and stuff like this you you um you inevitably are you form these little groups and you have one guy who's just like you guys are the best you're doing all this great stuff and and flattering you and and really it's it's pathetic and you really should move out of that and actually try to have friends and and and get out of that mode that it it really isn't life affirming and I think what will continue to be a theme is uh at least with N and neans is the the things they desire of freedom of real Vitality in life of the ability to live in a society that values them as men and as members of society that can exercise power for the ultimately for you know their own benefit and the benefit of others all those things are what Christianity actually makes possible yeah it's what Christianity asserts so so there that's one of the reasons why it's interesting reading n is I'm reading him and the positive in him the assertion of this like you're saying this Vitality this Freedom this feeling of Life of power of the ability to create your own world the the creative impulse it's beautiful in a lot of ways and it is it is the promise of Christianity right and then when he talks about Christianity and all of a sudden Christianity has become this dogmatic thing this Clos system this this uh cility to a a human construction as if it is nature a closed and it's like when I I hear that I'm I what I recognize there is paganism it's like oh yeah that's paganism you're talking about right and that's what paganism is is that closed world and so we're going to we're going to now there are plenty of Christians in the modern period who paganized Christianity and turned it into one of those closed systems right right and or attempted to but that's certainly not what we find in the in the father certainly not what we find in the Middle Ages and in fact so much of what I the Neo nans on the positive side of the N himself are affirming as this Warrior mentality this aristocratic posture towards the world this affirming of yourself and your own power I find I find historically speaking most manifest exactly in Christendom right in especially in the Warrior classes of Christendom it's like what you're describing here are the Knights of the Middle Ages you're not describing the Warriors of the Pagan regimes you know that's I mean maybe there's an anticipations in the in the ancient you know in the Bronze Age further back it's like okay there's Echoes or um anticipations of the ethic because they're not totally depraved and so there's there's real instances of that in other places in history no doubt but the place where you see it most pronounced and most um stable like over centuries is exactly in the noble classes of the Middle Ages of the Christian Middle Ages maybe can I ask you about that the knights cuz you were just describing this to me the other day part of the uh you know B thing this aristocratic radicalism this band of Warriors they talk about right we need these like militia band of Warriors things um and you were describing to me the the idea of the knights and part of it was uh the aristocratic radicalism is you have one band of Warriors who become Supreme in a regime that takes other bands of Warriors and subordinates them but you were describing something very different with the medieval knights yeah so the thing that what happens under Christendom is while it begins that way I mean you have the Barbarian uh the Barbarian Warriors coming in into into the the aftermath of the Roman Empire and you have situations of warrior bands over populations agricultural populations and it sort of it starts out in a way that it would be recognizable in this Pagan sense but then as it's christianized the the world of the the Warriors and the world of the peasant and the world of the clergy so the the different branches of the of the of the society merge together into a single stable world so what I mean is that the the it is not the case that the noble classes are perpetuating a mythology over those who they subdue that they themselves do not believe in or do not themselves or are cynical towards right it is not it is the case that the peasant at the bottom and the and the Knight at the top and the bishop and are are are participating in one world socially constructed fine I'm fine with that all right one world that has different modes of participation within it um now one of the things that that is really interesting about that is the way in which then the warrior the warrior groups are dispersed throughout civilization throughout the civilization throughout the society and are not grouped together into like fighting forces right they're dispersed throughout the social order because they're integrated into the social order itself now they come together right they come together to form armies and to form uh uh bands uh for the for the purpose of whatever whatever they need to fight over but they're not they're not a sort of Spartan Force that's standing force over a slave population that's not the case and so a lot of the sort of resentments that n sees between the slaves and the Masters the hatreds the envies all of that it's like well that's all present to the extent that they're sin but it's not the very nature of the social order no and that that's something entirely novel too right like bizarre I mean historically bizarre it's like historically you would never the the the Christian Middle Ages are are a bizarre anomaly historically speaking that's because Christianity is different right and it lasted so long too a very long time a very long time before it started to dissolve into you know different Waring factions and nation states and and and and then you can start to again start describing things in terms of pagan regimes right like you can you can start to say about the nation state and this one kind of centralized Army over the whole it's like okay we're done with the kind of disunified Germany it's a unified bismar Germany you know yeah exactly I mean but what you see with n and with the Neo nans is they just skip entirely over the Middle Ages like it never existed like you you you in in um in uh birth of tragedy n does this so terribly where it's like he he he's talking about Socrates and and Socrates Socrates Socrates and then like modern Christians as if there as if there's an unbroken line between what he takes to be this kind of rationalist dogmatic system building of Socrates and the rationalist dogmatic system building of the Enlightenment and the ideologues and the mass societies of the 19th century it's like no no you can't just you don't like it's not the case that the the over thousand years in the middle has nothing worthy of looking at that's not true right that's just that's a that's a it's a it's it's really I don't know I mean I think it goes to show the extent to which these nin are really modern and very modern thinkers and so are are um are still held captive to the the kind of Renaissance humanist interpretation of History yeah just read the Ancients bring it back bring it back yeah which is what which was which is ironic because it's an integral aspect of the construction of modernity I mean the modern states are built with things like the resurrection of Roman law the resur you know the the resurrection of a sort of understanding of religion that was had in the ancient world I mean the the modern Mass societies are built with a with an often purposeful explicit reaching back to the Pagan and bringing forward then the Pagan critiques of that Society emerge the nians um and attacking it as if what that Society was was somehow built by Christianity instead of being built by people who were rather explicitly trying to go around Christianity back to the pagans so what we're saying here right Christians built the Middle Ages and and we're not talking about Christan there's a there's a weird thing here right like they're going back to the pagans to get rid of what was before with Christian Christians building yeah the Middle Ages like they weren't they weren't using the resources of Christianity particularly to to build the modern the modern state and the modern political orders but they still retain some of the Christian elements which which we want to be careful here to distinguish that like modernity isn't entirely without its Christianity like it's still there's it's a Christian people that became uh you know that's that's what makes it really complicated uh the historical read on it CU you're right um because it's I've tried to explain elsewhere but but I guess I could try to do it again is that um modernity is something that Christendom did right like the church broadly understood the church as civiliz as a certain civilization it turned itself into the modern world I mean it became modern nothing else did there was no Invasion there was no outside force there was no like it did that and so because of that Christian there's a genealogy right because it emerged from within Christendom and then was was I think a sort of extended deconstruction of Christendom making use of useful pieces of Christendom for as long as they're useful before they're jettison because of that there's a genealogy of modernity that can be written as the playing out of Christianity right and and it's not totally it doesn't lack evidence it's not implausible right we can see I mean like you you mentioned the the the like the the woke ideology that is it present and I don't know even know to the degree that it is I don't you know it's all but whatever it's around mhm um and how the the fighting or the yelling for for justice the yelling the the the anger over um over what they perceive to be persecution and it's like well of course that is present there because those are Christian there are there are Christian components in that that are still have cultural purchase and are still therefore being deployed in because they're still useful mhm right so they're still being used because they still have because it still resonates with people there's an aspect of the law that structures our society that still finds appeals to Justice and equality as somehow significant right okay but so so that's true that doesn't mean it's Christian it means it it what it means is that it has residual aspects of Christianity that it's making use of precisely because Society isn't yet thoroughly christianized totally right there's still pieces in there so it still works therefore it's being used and that's very helpful to to to you know if if there's still elements so people can think well wait didn't you you know is he not getting Christianity right n and the neans really is the case that the Christian element still present is a large part of what n is critiquing let's be totally Pagan right like we need to get that out of here some people commented on the John Daniel Davidson thing too and we're like we just need to get Christianity this you know wokeism stuff whatever the residual and we'll all be Pagan and glorious and but part of what we're going to be doing going through all these these great texts of the pagans is like to say no that's not actually going to work like you're you're going to end up in a miserable state that this vitalism this uh this kind of like Pagan exuberance like that already worked through itself and all of the ancient taxs they saw all the problems with it they saw the things that they couldn't solve and on the other side of it is like uh no actually how about instead of being a modernity that's half Pagan half Christian and doing this weird and you're critiquing the Christian part how about we just be full Christian yeah how about if we actually take Christianity well that and that that makes you wonder that that's why you always have this it's there's ironies in it right n the irony is that you sometimes feel like he's protesting too much you know or or like there's some part uh you know there there's little little pieces little intimations where like there's some part where he knows at some level that he's Pro that he might be making a mistake here I do see that yeah you know that at some that that actually that that I don't know that you don't you don't want to open yourself to the possibility that Christianity is actually true and therefore we have to double down on it because if you do then the implications of that are something you don't want to face and so you you you go the opposite direction and then build structure intellectual structures aesthetic structures that then that then protect you from the possibility that Christianity might be true do you know what I mean I see a few places in in that Beyond Good and Evil when he talks about the church and the role of the church played in maintaining hierarchy for so long and maintaining difference and even the level of hatred towards Christianity that is is feels um often uh disproportionate M you know like like it's like I think there's often an irony there where the way the way that they'll talk about resentment of that the weak have this this envious hatred of the strong right that sometimes you that comes through in the reaction to Christianity this like hatred of it that is disproportionate and therefore feels defensive mhm do you know yeah because it it's exciting because I feel like they're asking a lot of great questions and and they're they're raising so many things thate that I think Christianity is just so strong on like it actually brings us back to the it brings us back to the field where we're like most at home it's like yeah in in the history in life in what actually makes life worth living in power that me the reality the reality of power so so so like there there's you read some of these guys and they act like the perception you get is like their great Insight is that power is real and that power should be used and that power and it's like well that just is the underpinning of the entire notion of Christian ethics like the entire concept political social Doctrine Christian ethics is based upon the assumption that power is real power is efficacious power is unequally distributed right that Society is ordered hierarchically that there is rank if you want to use the nitian terms that there are the cultural different levels of cultural sophistication different levels of political power different levels all like all of that is the presupposition of moving into what Christian Christian ethics would dictate as far as political order we're not denying any of it we embrace all of it yep I'll take it all right so so it's like that isn't the Big Challenge to Christianity that's that's actually the the the the opening that like the the foot in the door to Christianity it's like great get rid of that egalitarian like nonsense great that's you're right that that's a big tyrannical structure that's designed to oppress you bust out of it now let me show you how power works right like now let's look at at what power is exactly and it you know and by asking all the right questions I think you can it it um it makes it such that it it's you're not having to deal with a bunch of like liberal kind of like like half-truth falsities it's like they ask all the questions and and want it to be the case that they can have a kind of pagan exuberance some type of constructed World post bronze age that they can make a Bronze Age thing but I think over time as you continue to ask those questions and um and I think for the people who are very you know who who say they're neonian or whatever to to them it's like I think reality will will start to become apparent of this isn't a life that is glorifying your yourself and actually making you more free making you more lovable and and and exerting your true power and what we're really trying to present here at the series is is that um th those things that you're asking the right questions those things that you're Desiring to be life affirming are found in Christianity right that's right yeah I I think that's uh that'll kind of take us through for uh the series um and I think this is I think that was a pretty good introduction Overture of what we're trying to do here so yeah I hope so yeah great well thank you everyone for watching and we'll see you next [Music] time oh [Music]

Channel: New Polity

Views: 3,230

Keywords:

Id: 0TUYU0FbEmw

Length: 64min 36sec (3876 seconds)

Published: Thu Jun 27 2024