I’ve been reading Neoreaction a Basilisk and, through the books criticisms, getting more acquainted with the current theories right wing “intellectuals” are propagating. That’s led me to consider reading through at least some of Nick Land’s work, maybe to better grasp what theory Silicon Valley elites are huffing at the moment.
I’ve done this once; before I ever became more ideologically aware, I read through Atlas Shrugged not knowing what it was and after finishing, even then, walked away pissed off I spent any time on it. However, it was useful for catching right wing references and understanding the basis for libertarianism later. It’s also been interesting, though not quite useful, to trace how right wing thought has evolved and what the resulting “praxis” has looked like; the Koch brothers using the tea party as an entryist/infiltration strategy for promoting libertarianism in government, the resulting frustration of those efforts leading to Steve Banon and the promotion of Trump and the beginnings of more “authoritarian” or dictatorial strategies, and now to Moldbug and Land promoting straight up accelerationism and fascism amongst the ascendant tech CEOs after they all abandoned their former siding with liberals.
But is it useful to know any of that? I feel like all that’s happening as I come to understand how they think and how they implement their vision for the world, the more I understand how fucked we are (let’s assume we’re fucked, right?).
Right wing theory won’t tell you how right wingers think because right wing theory only exists to justify the reactionary worldviews they hold. They do not draw their views from that theory. Right wingers just believe whatever reactionary nonsense they want and use buzzwords from those “theories” or quote them in order to justify them. It’s like evangelicals and the bible. If you read the bible it’s not going to help you understand an evangelical. Because most of them haven’t even read it. They just pick and choose parts they like to justify what they already think.
If you want a real understanding of how reactionaries think read leftist theory. It will teach you more about them than right wing theory will.
Went to a Baptist funeral today. It ended with a threat that those of us who haven’t accepted christ won’t ever see my great subt again in heaven and thst she “got to the finish line first” which is a deeply morbid way of looking at things. It went over well wirh her church friends but nkt so well with the family.
I agree to an extent. The vast majority of right wing slop is post hoc justification and not forward-thinking.
But there are some VERY useful right wingers to understand to get the basis of their philosophy. Reading g Carl Schmitt was legitimately perspective changing, and (though you absolutely don’t have to hand it to him) he had a consistent rigorous method to analyze how the world worked and should be. At least he had some interesting claims and justifications that get to the core of society how he sees it. I came away much more knowledgeable about how fascism arises and is justified.
I think reading Nietzsche is similar, though it’s a little too easy to be placate by him and think ‘eh, hes not so bad’ so I would recommend reading Losurdo’s book on Nietzsche immediately before or after any reading of Nitezsche. But Nietzsche really did just have a reactionary response to growing trends based on his aristocratic class interests and says that pretty plainly. Right wingers today are similar but with slightly changed class forms (labor aristocracy, imperial core, white supremacy, petit bourgeois, etc)
Phrasing it as equivalent to reading scripture is good. And of course, I’m going to continue reading leftist thought.
I guess I was wondering why Sandifer put herself through reading all the shit she’s criticizing.