The Dark Enlightenment

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PopePalpatine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I wouldn't imagine the "Dark Enlightenment" to be a very populist movement in developed, Western societies, but from little I know I know of Russian populism (i.e. what the local priest says) I can see how it would appeal there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Labarbapostiza

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, Catherine the Great considered herself an enlightened despot. She had a correspondence with and was a patron of several west European enlightenment writers.

The ideas of the Enlightenment penetrated deeply into Russia. And in fact the Enlightenment has been blamed for the rise of communism in Russia.

Arguments against the Enlightenment tend to be along the lines of it being some kind of Pandora's box. And there's a great bit of truth in the argument, but once the box is open it's a little pointless bemoaning the fact.

What if Hitler had won the war. Would we be saying now that it was because the Enlightenment never reached Germany, or that the German's are fundamentally illiberal.

Russia transitioned from an authoritarian aristocracy to decades of brutal authoritarian communism, then to state capitalism backed by paternalistic government. Any sociopolitical tendencies that someone might identify with "dark enlightenment" have probably been there all along, in reality.

There is something there, but what it is, is uncertain. I think you'll find the same weird forces in any country. Ireland for instance had a long period of authoritarian Church rule. And many of the dissidents locked up in Soviet Russia weren't so much overtly political - after a few decades of communism, it was Russian conservatism that preserved the communist system.

liberal democracy is not that old. It did not spring into existence anywhere over night. If you look at America, the wheels were coming off its' democracy from its' inception in 1877. Some states wilfully misinterpreted 'states rights' in the constitution to mean they could have illiberal undemocratic and unconstitutional governments within their states. In Europe, the transition from absolute monarchy to liberal democracy was gradual. It's not something that would have necessarily happened. Russia's third last Tsar, had been liberalising Russia. When his son and then grandson came to power they rolled back his liberalisations. Things like freezing the social classes (no mobility allowed), identity cards required to state a person's social class.

It's also important to remember, the last Tsar fell exactly like the communists would in 89; by destroying the Russian state from within, and not by force of a popular revolution. And when you compare Putin with the previous two regimes, it looks like it's going to end the same as before

.

PopePalpatine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, I can see a strain of anti-liberalism in Putin's regime. One of the first things that spring to mind when thinking of that anti-liberalism is the anti-"homosexual propaganda" law, and also the conviction of Pussy Riot for offending religious beliefs.

IrishTrajan

KyussBishop wrote: »

Just another neo-fascist movement; the time with which these types of movements tend to gain more headway, is during economic turmoil.

If the number of fascist groups are rising, that would be indicative that more and more people are turning to the right wing (moderates, largely, but extremism is an invariable result), then shouldn't you ask the question as to why that is?

It's quite easy to dismiss them as "fascists" and "neo-Nazis" when you don't want to face up to the fact that more and more people are becoming disenfranchised with the left-wing "multiculturalism", "gun control", and "feminism/Gender Identity".

I'm a centralist, so I don't have a vested interest in which side wins out in the mainstream, but do merely dismiss them as "fascist" is to do the climate a gross injustice. It is also ironic that the rise of the right wing has also caused the creation of "militant liberals" (re: Sweden).

I think there is a fine line between multiculturalism/compassion, and being a cuckolded politically/having white guilt.

IrishTrajan

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Well, I can see a strain of anti-liberalism in Putin's regime. One of the first things that spring to mind when thinking of that anti-liberalism is the anti-"homosexual propaganda" law, and also the conviction of Pussy Riot for offending religious beliefs.

"Anti-liberalism" is merely the opposition to "Big Government". Liberals like a Government with more powers, Conservatives want to limit Government intervention (which is a blessing and a curse, depending on where you are on the proverbial ladder).

I agree with gay marriage and abortion. I oppose the ever mounting restrictions on gun control (Ireland has some of the most stringent firearms laws in Europe, and some Gardai were calling for even more stringent implementations), and the "throw reason to wind, we're politically correct now!" mentality (re: Malmo in Sweden had 36 bombings last year, and police are regularly attacked by minorities if they enter that area. Just the other day, two minority youths were spitting on members of the public, intimidating them, and actually bit someone. When the security guard restrained him [rather forcibly, granted], the Media lashed out at the "racist" security guards and had both of them fired, with liberals calling for the police to become involved).

Also, Putin isn't anti-liberal. He's anti-Western and an asshole.

The Corinthian

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I found this cartoon rather amusing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDqayC1sR7g

Of relevance to this thread is how Eastern Europeans view Western Europeans. And it is a view I've found Eastern Europeans I know (at least those of Orthodox faith) tend to share to some degree or other. In essence, Westerners are not seen so much as liberal, but decadent.

Labarbapostiza

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of relevance to this thread is how Eastern Europeans view Western Europeans. And it is a view I've found Eastern Europeans I know (at least those of Orthodox faith) tend to share to some degree or other. In essence, Westerners are not seen so much as liberal, but decadent.

I personally know quite a few eastern Europeans. They say the further east you go, the more backward it gets, and that rural areas are very backward; it gets a bit "and we don't want to see men and wimmin geshing married".

The Russia attitude to homosexuality has been mixed for a very long time. Sergei Kirov, one of the early Bolsheviks was gay.

Parts of the former Soviet Union were so backward that communism was over before it reached them.

Labarbapostiza

IrishTrajan wrote: »

"Anti-liberalism" is merely the opposition to "Big Government". Liberals like a Government with more powers, Conservatives want to limit Government intervention (which is a blessing and a curse, depending on where you are on the proverbial ladder).

Well, a lot of the opposition to "Big Government" is bogus. It largely originates from people in receipt of lots of cheese from Big Government, and who want more. Their opposition most of the time is stop other people getting funds that they believe should be coming their way. It's like Irish farmers complaining about people on social welfare. Or the typical right-wing civil engineer, who makes a good living building bridges to nowhere.

hatrickpatrick

I don't in any way support these extremists, but their emergence was and is an inevitable consequence of the rise of SJW-style thinking in the mainstream media and political sphere. The SJWs represent the incredibly nasty extreme heads of the coin, now these idiots are the tails. That's going to happen when you try to ram political correctness down people's throats and ban or shame any dissent. Free speech has taken a massive hit in recent years, where people are routinely harassed and shamed into withdrawing their views. This gets considerable media attention when it's the "good guys" (feminist bloggers, for instance) who are being silenced in this manner, but when it's anyone who questions that pervasive SJW meta narrative, it gets no attention at all.

Again I don't support these fascist types in any way whatsoever, but the social justice movement created them by being so unbelievably dictatorial, obnoxious, and suppressive of basic freedoms people had previously taken for granted.

That whole Gamergate crap over the summer is a pretty good example of this. Telling people they "can't" write in a certain style because it's "offensive" is going to generate a backlash from those who believe in the right to offend. Subsequently labelling those people "racist" and "monstrous" not because they actually hold racist views but simply believe in the right to hold them is only going to further harden their stance. I found myself getting sucked into this over the summer during various online debates in which defending the concept of freedom of speech and freedom to offend got me labelled a misogynist because there were some misogynists who held the same views and argued on the same side of the fence. I found the whole thing depressing so I walked away from it, but I can easily see how people would be radicalised in that environment.