President Trump Let Himself be Bullied by CNN into Firing a Staffer and Ruining His Life, Based on a Paper the Propaganda Giant Says is “White Supremacist”; Read the Paper Here

 


Martin Heidegger, possibly during the 1930s
 


 

By Nicholas Stix

I re-posted things here in reverse order: first, comments about the article and about comments, then the article.

When you see the article, you’ll understand. It’s a slog in English, and the writer also tries showing off his German, but his German is no good.

Thus, I’ll put my criticisms of him here.

Darren Beattie works from a position on the collapse of American conservatism that I’ve seen elsewhere in recent years, though I can’t recall where. (Possibly, it was at the same Webzine, American Greatness.) That position sees American postwar conservatism as having had a symbiotic (or parasitic) relationship with the Soviet Union, such that when one died, so did the other.

Conversely, I see Communism as having triumphed in America, after the crucifixions of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy and John Birch Society founder Robert Welch, respectively, at the hands of President Dwight D. Eisenhower (see Stanton Evans’ Blacklisted by History) and William F. Buckley Jr..

 


Dwight D. Eisenhower: Even after he was inaugurated President, his first loyalty was not to the GOP, or even the U.S. Constitution, but to the United States Army. That's why he destroyed Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. McCarthy threatened to embarrass the Army, which was lousy with Communists.
 

Beattie: “Fusionism was so called because it was able to construct a narrative that fused together traditionalist Burkean social conservatives and religious Christians, firstly, Cold-War hawks (Cold Warriors), secondly, and free market economic types (including libertarians like Friedman), finally, together. My central claim with respect to fusionism is that the tripartite coalition to which it refers makes no internal sense by itself, but rather it borrows its coherence artificially not only from the geopolitical threat posed by the USSR, but also from its reactive opposition to communist ideology as such.”

“Tripartite coalition”? I count four.

But more importantly than that, the communist threat never abated.

The late 1940s-early 1960s Communist Blacklist neutralized the CPUSA as a political force in America, but communism triumphed without The Party, and without, ultimately, the USSR.

The communists took over the Democrat Party, the public schools, the higher learning, the press and Hollywood. But most importantly, they found the ultimate communist front: The so-called civil rights movement.

Anti-communists turned their sights outward, while ceding more and more ground domestically. When they died off, their “conservative” and “neo-conservative” successors completely surrendered to the forces of domestic communism, aka “multiculturalism.”

Darren Beattie writes of “fusionism.” Where was fusionism’s institutional home? William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review. Which Republicans did the most to destroy domestic anti-Communism? Ike and William F. Buckley Jr.
 


William F. Buckley Jr.
 

The problem of the conservative response to 9/11 was not “incoherence,” but cowardice. The same lack of spine that had Republicans surrender to the “civil rights movement” (and instead wage class war on working-class whites), had them surrender to Islam.

Beattie also has a brief passage devoted to globalism that is intriguing, but which requires a great deal of work, teasing out its specifics.

“Whatever fancy and idealized theories used to describe it, globalization in the real sense refers to a particular set of interests and a common investment in a particular assortment of untruths. Global democracy in reality refers to a specific geopolitical alliance with little to do with democracy; the same countries have a common stake in a certain reckless and unsustainable monetary policy through the coordination of various central banks taking on enormous debt; global free trade is in fact the trade deals written by lobbyists in dark rooms. The errors associated with globalization, and particularly those associated with immigration and monetary policy, are so large that a bubble has been created out of desperate attempts to avoid the reckoning with reality.”

My harsh criticisms of Beattie notwithstanding, I feel terrible for him having his career ruined, and blame it all on President Trump. Beattie gave up a professorship to come to the White House, and now he has neither the professorship nor the White House job.

Trump has a debt to Beattie that he must re-pay.

As a VDARE colleague recently wrote, Trump had better start showing loyalty to his supporters, or they will stop showing loyalty to him.
 


HR Department libtard • 11 days ago

Worldwide, and within Western nations, these "lesser folk" are in slum societies not because of anything whites did, but because those are the societies that browns and blacks create, because they have low IQ averages and low averages with regard to impulse control. This is not whites' fault. We can't do anything with these people except either manage them, keep them out of trouble, or separate from them, and let them live like animals which, frankly, does not bother them.
• 1


Nicholas Stix to HR Department • 7 days ago

You're a Darwinist. I can tell. As such, you're a biological determinist who ignores culture, which includes ideology.

Certain groups' inability to contribute to white-dominated (or East Asian-dominated) societies is not just due to their low average IQ and impulse control, but their ideologies and practices of murderous hatred towards superior groups.


leonard ugochukwu to HR Department • 13 days ago

Lol i don't know what you think you know, but the invention of the wheel was not some kind of worldwide phenomenon that only Africa was excluded from. the wheel, at best, was discovered in maybe two places in the entire world and then information passed around.

"starvation and violence" are a direct consequence of corruption. Corruption that is increasingly all too present in countries in Asia, middle east an Europe. albeit to different magnitudes. So many African countries are rising to ascendancy today. or at the very least, showing sings of developing economies.

"usually light-skinned blacks being given prestigious titles and easy incomes" what does that even mean? are you admitting that there is indeed some kind of racial- or at least- skin tone prejudice in america? something we've all known.

"The socioeconomic circumstances are effects of the DNA in question." Ah, yes. because when black people were initially brought to america, they were on equal footing with white america. it's not like there was slavery, Jim crow laws, discriminatory laws that have long lasting consequences to this very day. You don't seem like the historically-ignorant type.

Dude, you can make your case for separation without presenting half-truths or ignoring historical action and consequent ramifications. I'm not one of those whiny leftists; we can have an honest debate.
 1


Nicholas Stix to leonard ugochukwu • 7 days ago

The whole world came out of slavery.

Blacks had much safer communities under Jim Crow than under Jim Snow.

Blacks were not initially brought to Americas in chains. They were enslaved by black and Arab Moslem men.

White indentured servants were treated much worse than black slaves (once slavery was founded) in colonial America.

"that have long lasting consequences to this very day."

That's a racial fairy tale. Since at least 1964, blacks in America have been the most privileged race on the face of the Earth.
• 1


leonard ugochukwu to Nicholas Stix • 2 days ago

"Blacks had much safer communities under Jim Crow than under Jim Snow."

What constitutes a safe neighborhood? Lack of crime, families intact, high or normal graduation rates etc... All these were eradicated with the introduction of the welfare state in the 60s.

"Blacks were not initially brought to Americas in chains. They were enslaved by black and Arab Moslem men."

How are those two sentences related in any way? they are mutually exclusive events. Blacks were indeed brought here as slaves by the Europeans.

"White indentured servants were treated much worse than black slaves (once slavery was founded) in colonial America."

May you kindly provide your citations, please. otherwise this is complete hogwash.

"That's a racial fairy tale. Since at least 1964, blacks in America have been the most privileged race on the face of the Earth."

Once again, another statement with no relevance to this conversation. I would love for you to explain how the effects of slavery and Jim crow still don't persist till this day.


Nicholas Stix to leonard ugochukwu • 7 days ago

You've got the causality backwards. They're "poor," because they're criminals.

The jobs were there, but blacks drove them out from one city after another.

"there are numerous thriving black communities in america with low crime and decent standards or living."

Like where? I know of numerous prosperous, black communities, thanks to affirmative action (institutionalized racism against qualified whites, on behalf of unqualified blacks), but am unaware of any low-crime, black neighborhoods. A poor, white neighborhood will always have less crime than a well-to-do black one.


leonard ugochukwu to Nicholas Stix • 2 days ago

"A poor, white neighborhood will always have less crime than a well-to-do black one."

Oh really? Citation please.

"You've got the causality backwards. They're "poor," because they're criminals."

This is an absurd and laughable response. why do you commit petty crime in the first place? because it's fun? or because you have to survive? And besides-- the answer is almost entirely dependent on what kind of crime you are specifically talking about.

"The jobs were there, but blacks drove them out from one city after another."

Lol they came into town and the jobs just grew legs and ran? You sound like a 6 year old.


Nicholas Stix to leonard ugochukwu • 3 hours ago

leonard ugochukwu,

Just go to my primary blog, Nicholas Stix, Uncensored, hit the PayPal “Donate” icon, and make a contribution of $1,000.

http://nicholasstixuncensor...

Once the money clears, I will be only too glad to devote two hours of my precious time explaining things to you, with citations.


leonard ugochukwu to HR Department • 17 days ago

I'm curious what is "off the charts" to you? I'm not in any way downplaying crime in the country, but this often repeated argument that black/brown crime is ridiculously through the roof is just absurd. anyone who's actually looked at the numbers knows this.


HR Department to leonard ugochukwu • 17 days ago

In the U.S. it is universally acknowledged that any black or brown area is going to be notably more dangerous than any white area, and there will more "seedy" illegal activities of various kinds going on... drug usage, petty theft, sex crimes, etc.

It's a global pattern. Lawlessness and primitiveness are pretty standard in Africa, Latin America, the Mid East.

Here's a statistical analysis of the situation in the U.S. https://www.amren.com/the-c...
o 1


leonard ugochukwu to HR Department • 16 days ago

Couple things i want to address in your response.

The underlying factor in all those places is the socio-economic status. the one those neighborhoods have in common is rampant poverty and lack of jobs. there are numerous thriving black communities in america with low crime and decent standards or living.

I mean, the word "petty theft" is pretty self explanatory. who are the people most likely to do that: poor people.

its also funny that you mention drug usage in the midst of an opium crisis that is almost exclusively a white phenomenon in america. the vast majority of its users are white.

As for your AMREN reference, well i'll just refer back to my earlier response. Look at the different groups in america and compare which one has the most members living below the poverty line.


HR Department to leonard ugochukwu • 16 days ago

Worldwide trends. Billion blacks in West Africa, not 1 successful nation, never independently invented the wheel, no written language, no 2 story architecture. Starvation, corruption, violence, are the default. And blacks are in squalor wherever they are concentrated, all over the world. Latin America, Europe, cities and neighborhoods throughout the US.

Worldwide trends. And no opposite trends that amount to anything. "Thriving" black communities in the U.S. are the result of handouts in white societies...usually light-skinned blacks being given prestigious titles and easy incomes...They could not have done it independently. As West Africa shows. All the sweeping statistics regarding test scores, income, historical achievement, crime, etc. create a picture of chronic, incurable black failure.

The socioeconomic circumstances are effects of the DNA in question. Blacks have low average IQs and poor impulse control. That's why these tough breaks "follow" them everywhere.

Brown areas are less violent and poor than black areas on average, but nowhere near the success rates of white areas.

We all just need to separate.


leonard ugochukwu to HR Department • 13 days ago

Lol i don't know what you think you know, but the invention of the wheel was not some kind of worldwide phenomenon that only Africa was excluded from. the wheel, at best, was discovered in maybe two places in the entire world and then information passed around.

"starvation and violence" are a direct consequence of corruption. Corruption that is increasingly all too present in countries in Asia, middle east an Europe. albeit to different magnitudes. So many African countries are rising to ascendancy today. or at the very least, showing sings of developing economies.

"usually light-skinned blacks being given prestigious titles and easy incomes" what does that even mean? are you admitting that there is indeed some kind of racial- or at least- skin tone prejudice in america? something we've all known.

"The socioeconomic circumstances are effects of the DNA in question." Ah, yes. because when black people were initially brought to america, they were on equal footing with white america. it's not like there was slavery, Jim crow laws, discriminatory laws that have long lasting consequences to this very day. You don't seem like the historically-ignorant type.

Dude, you can make your case for separation without presenting half-truths or ignoring historical action and consequent ramifications. I'm not one of those whiny leftists; we can have an honest debate.


HR Department to leonard ugochukwu • 13 days ago

Failure to conceive of the wheel was only one example. Blacks have never independently worked out, or generally incorporated, a single innovation that is a prerequisite for any kind of advanced society.

The rest of your response is simply you agreeing with the basic thrust of what I'm saying but insisting that in every case Negro failure is caused by bad luck.

I'm saying that that is far-fetched. Which is why I reference worldwide trends. If blacks had the same capacities as whites, or even Latinos, we would see patterns emerge of decent behavior and independent complex organization and social advancement. There are no such patterns. Just a few exceptions created by handout schemes in white societies, and usually involving blacks who are 50% or more white.

Glad to have an honest debate. Begin with the fact that you cannot show any significant pattern of blacks functioning in a manner that would allow them to independently maintain first world infrastructure, legal systems, etc.
o 2
o

leonard ugochukwu to HR Department • 7 days ago

Like i stated initially, a lot of African countries are ascendant and are going to become more influential in the coming years. Most African countries are literally less than 75 years old. Compared to western countries that are much older and hence having more time and experience to perfect the governmental operations.

Are we really going to a compare country like america (242 years old) to say, Nigeria (58 years old) ?

There have been African civilizations in the past and quite successful ones at that. The wealthiest man that has ever lived is a man of African descent (Mansa Musa). the African people, precolonial era, actively engaged in trade with the Mediterranean world. West Africans had traded with Europeans through merchants in North Africa for centuries. The first traders to sail down the West African coast were the Portuguese in the 15th century. Later the Dutch, British, French and Scandinavians followed. They were mainly interested in precious items such as gold, ivory and spices, particularly pepper.

What i particularly find funny is the fact that you honestly believe Europeans independently came about their own civilization. It is obviously indisputable that Greece and Rome were the first civilizations in the entire Europe and were subsequently the nations to bring Europe in civilization and cultural relevance. You think those philosophers were just born and came about the knowledge themselves? Aristotle, perhaps the greatest philosopher of all time, regularly traveled to Africa to learn and study.

the point i'm trying to make is that no one group independently created any civilization by themselves. what has allowed humanity to grow and progress has been the intermingling between different peoples. the sharing of knowledge. I don't know where you got your information from, but Europe was not the cradle of knowledge.


HR Department to leonard ugochukwu • 7 days ago

Let me know when you find any significant trends of blacks creating or independently maintaining complex first world systems. We'll suspend this discussion until then.
o 1
o
o leonard ugochukwu to HR Department • 2 days ago

This is honestly your response to what i just wrote?


HR Department to leonard ugochukwu • 2 days ago

Yep. What you "just wrote," last week, is all out the window if there are zero major trends, anywhere, suggesting blacks can independently maintain let alone conceive of and build complex first world systems.
o 1


Not Necessary to HR Department • 16 days ago

I'm not sure what you're post is trying to say really. What I'm trying to say is that it's really NOT about skin color. There just happens to be a highly statistically significant correlation between skin color and undesirable social outcomes. HOWEVER, if not for the undesirable social outcomes these groups would not be ostracized. It's about the poor outcomes and unfortunately they are highly correlated with skin color at this time.

It's a good starting point because good in this context is a measure of social cohesion. All it takes is a cohesive or self-similar society.


Nicholas Stix to Not Necessary • 7 days ago

"All it takes is a cohesive or self-similar society."

Homogeneity is a necessary but insufficient condition. Most of the world consists of homogeneous hellholes.


Not Necessary to Nicholas Stix • 5 days ago

You're absolutely right and I'm sorry for speaking in absolutes (see my awful pun there?).

It takes homogeneity, ego suppression, rule of law (really just consistency/principled way of living/impulse-suppression), and (ideally) empathy.
I won't claim empathy is a necessity because some cultures (east Asian cultures specifically) have been fairly successful despite the lack thereof.


Nicholas Stix to HR Department • 7 days ago

I upvoted you, in spite of your gibberish about "Jewish controllers."

The Jews are responsible for everything good.

Of course, as the President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board of ZOG, I am the controller of controllers, to whom you must ultimately answer.


HR Department to Nicholas Stix • 7 days ago

You Jewish?


Joel Mathis • 19 days ago

You are lying to your readers.

CNN never said this paper is white supremacist.

CNN said Beattie delivered this paper at a conference also attended by white supremacists.

This is undoubtedly true.

CNN: "The schedule for the 2016 conference listed panels and speeches by white nationalist Peter Brimelow and two writers, John Derbyshire and Robert Weissberg, who were both fired in 2012 from the conservative magazine National Review for espousing racist views.

"Other speakers from the 2016 conference are regular contributors to the white nationalist website VDare. Jared Taylor, another leading white nationalist, can be heard at the conference in 2016 on Derbyshire's radio show along with Brimelow."

These guys' views aren't a secret. If you go to this conference where these guys are on panels, you're choosing to make common cause with white supremacists.
I suspect AmGreatness understands this, which is why the content of the CNN report is distorted so.

• 3


Joel Mathis to rollo clevich • 19 days ago

Lots of white supremacists are partial to Asians. Derbyshire wrote a whole chapter why in his "We're Doomed" book. Doesn't mean he's not racist.

As for "guilt by association": It's a good question how many associates you need to have before it becomes likely that you associate with folks because you share an agenda. Maybe Beattie is completely innocent - and, judging by this, merely guilty of being a tedious bore - but I don't recall Trumpist conservatives pleading for just restraint in judgment during the "Obama pals around with terrorists" days.

Anyway, the Trump Administration fired him. It's not like they surrender to CNN. So you have to wonder what they thought about this situation if Beattie was too hot for them to handle.


HR Department to Joel Mathis • 18 days ago

Considering the high rates of mental illness and disease, the often grotesque behavior and appearance, the anti-family, anti-natal culture, and the fact that they make love to feces, what is "phobic" about despising homos?

Considering the worldwide trends of poverty, violence and stupidity among blacks and browns, what kind of idiot would not be a "racist"?

You rattle off these terms as if you have proved something. Please explain why so-called "homophobia" and "racism" are not well-founded.

Bet you can't.

• 4


InRussetShadows to mustafa amul • 18 days ago

Yeah no. I've been to Vdare. I've read more than a few articles there. Vdare is pretty obviously white nationalist/supremacist in their outlook. Again, not every article is that way, but generally their conclusions are that whites are a superior race.


mustafa amul to InRussetShadows • 10 days ago

I'll take Brimelow's word about his own beliefs over your biased assessment, thanks.
1

Nicholas Stix to InRussetShadows • 7 days ago

"Again, not every article is that way, but generally their conclusions are that whites are a superior race."

Another racist liar is heard from.

Why do you hate white people?


NutherGuy to Joel Mathis • 18 days ago

I live in an area with many whites and sometimes eat at Waffle House. Doubtless there are occasional white supremacists eating there at the same time, though I've never heard such views expressed. Could I be fired for associating with white Supremacists?

I'll apologize in advance of conviction, I totally disown those fools. However I won't promise not to go to Waffle House again.


Nicholas Stix to NutherGuy • 7 days ago

You blew it, by disowning them.


Nicholas Stix Joel Mathis • 7 days ago

You are lying to the readers here.

You asserted that Beattie read a paper at "a conference also attended by white supremacists"; you named four men, none of whom is a white supremacist; and then you acted as if you had scored a zinger.

By the way, why do you hate white people?

• • 3


Bedarb to Uncle Max • 15 days ago

95% of the White House staff are Neocon-lite, Gingrich Revolution, Conservatism Inc. types. Essentially: overeducated dittoheads with 115 IQs, rich parents, and a very high opinion of themselves. Swamp Culture influenced Trump during the "central casting" Transition phase, post-election. And it continues to influence him.


Nicholas Stix to Bedarb • 7 days ago

"95% of the White House staff are Neocon-lite, Gingrich Revolution, Conservatism Inc. types."

But why? I find it simplest to blame Ivanka for everything bad. But who's her father? There's something schizzy or hypocritical going on, when a man fills his WH with just the sort of people he ran against.


Bedarb to Nicholas Stix • 7 days ago


It's not Javanka. It's The Donald. He's a paradoxical personality. His Right-wing credentials are shallow at best. He's not an ideologue or a Movement guy. Or even a Party guy. Mostly, he's an opportunist.

Privately, he probably views immigration cynically. For him, it's a Culture War wedge issue (i.e., to get elected) rather than the existential National question that it actually is. He never cared about it in the past. Why should he care now? His family isn't effected. He's in a New York state of mind. That's part of an explanation why he hasn't aggressively pushed for his central campaign promise. Possibly also why he publicly attacks his own Attorney General-- who wants to make Immigration (rather than the #DeepState) the central Narrative.

Trump likes FOX News & tabloid media in general. He gravitates towards aggressive reality-tv media personalities. He staffed the White House & Cabinet like it was an episode of The Apprentice. He likes attitudinal populism because he views himself as an underdog and also because it's amusing & effective. But he's also an elitist. He likes his people to be telegenic, Ivy League, & successful. He hires the best people. He hates Southern accents, brags about his IQ and his genes, & knows when you're a Star they let you do it.

He's a paradox. He thinks he can have it both ways. But no man can serve two masters.
o 1

Nicholas Stix • 7 days ago

Although I heroically defended young Beattie against genocidal racists like Joel Mathis, I did so with a heavy heart. There are many good motivations for carrying out the death penalty, but the state-sanctioned execution of a man who wrote a doctoral dissertation entitled, "Martin Heidegger's Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity" is at the top of the list. Quoting Heidegger’s blah-blah-blah in support of crazy Hölderlin just underscores Beattie’s earlier offense.

And if you’re going to show off by tossing off foreign phrases, you’d darned sure better spell them correctly! In one case, I had to read the English translation, because Beattie had so badly botched the German.


Nicholas Stix • 7 days ago

Darren Beattie:

“Fusionism was so called because it was able to construct a narrative that fused together traditionalist Burkean social conservatives and religious Christians, firstly, Cold-War hawks (Cold Warriors), secondly, and free market economic types (including libertarians like Friedman), finally, together. My central claim with respect to fusionism is that the tripartite coalition to which it refers makes no internal sense by itself, but rather it borrows its coherence artificially not only from the geopolitical threat posed by the USSR, but also from its reactive opposition to communist ideology as such.”

“Tripartite coalition”? I count four.

But more importantly than that, the communist threat never abated.

The late 1940s-early 1960s Communist Blacklist neutralized the CPUSA as a political force in America, but communism triumphed without The Party, and without, ultimately, the USSR.

The communists took over the Democrat Party, the public schools, the higher learning, the press and Hollywood. But most importantly, they found the ultimate communist front: The so-called civil rights movement.

Anti-communists turned their sights outward, while ceding more and more ground domestically. When they died off, their “conservative” and “neo-conservative” successors completely surrendered to the forces of domestic communism, aka “multiculturalism.”

Darren Beattie writes of “fusionism.” Where was fusionism’s institutional home? William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review. Which Republicans did the most to destroy domestic anti-Communism? Ike and William F. Buckley Jr.

The problem of the conservative response to 9/11 was not “incoherence,” but cowardice. The same lack of spine that had Republicans surrender to the “civil rights movement” (and instead wage class war on working-class whites), had them surrender to Islam.
 

Read the Paper CNN Says is “White Supremacist”
By Darren J. Beattie
August 21st, 2018
American Greatness

Editor’s note: The White House last week fired speechwriter Darren Beattie after CNN reported he had “white supremacist ties.” Beattie, who contributed to American Greatness early in our publication history, spoke at conference the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) deemed a “band of white nationalists, pseudoacademic and academic racists.”

Beattie, who was a Duke University political science professor at the time, delivered the paper—titled “Intelligentsia and The Right”—as part of a panel at the annual conference of the H.L. Mencken Club in 2016.

Beattie issued a statement over the weekend in response to CNN’s story: “In 2016 I attended the Mencken conference in question and delivered a stand-alone, academic talk titled ‘The Intelligentsia and the Right.’ I said nothing objectionable and stand by my remarks completely. It was the honor of my life to serve in the Trump Administration. I love President Trump, who is a fearless American hero, and continue to support him one hundred percent. I have no further comment.”

American Greatness obtained the draft of Beattie’s paper. It has been edited only slightly to correct a few typographical errors. We’ve also provided English translations for a few German phrases at the end. Otherwise, the paper is as Beattie presented it in 2016. We invite readers to judge for themselves whether his work is “pseudoacademic,” “racist,” or “white supremacist.”

Intelligentsia and The Right

I’d like to begin by thanking the H.L Mencken Club and particularly Professor Paul Gottfried for being generous enough to invite me to speak here. I consider it a great honor.

I’ve been asked to address the question of “The Intelligentsia and the Right.” For those of us unfortunate enough to have inhabited what passes as the conservative world of “ideas” this topic would seem to invoke a well-worn genre of defeatism and lamentation associated with the frustrating but otherwise indisputable fact that, since World War II at least—and in some ways going back much farther than that—the intellectual class and creative class more generally have been associated with the left and the advancement of a so-called left-wing agenda. That many of you likely heard the phrase “Intelligentsia and the Right” and had the immediate thought of a separate and oppositional relationship between the two words—that is, the intelligentsia as considered apart from and antagonistic to the right—testifies to the status of this old genre and the reality it reflects.

But I don’t need to tell you—though it always bears repetition—that these are no ordinary times. Changes are afoot. Accordingly, I’d like to address what I think are some underlying developments giving rise to the emergence of, if not an intelligentsia of the “right” then certainly one that stands in stark and robust opposition to what we’ve come to describe as the “left.” Please note that I use these terms “right” and “left” tentatively and with qualification because the developments to which I attribute the optimistic possibility of a new kind of intelligentsia are at the same time developments that call into question the usefulness of the “left” “right” paradigm itself.

Furthermore, note that in discussing the possibility of a new type of intelligentsia emerging from recent historical developments pertaining to the changing circumstances and structure of ideology, society, and the economy, I thereby give a nod to the broadly Hegelian and Marxist connotations of the term without being able to address at adequate length the [sic] its complicated and rich intellectual history, not to mention the vexed philosophical questions lingering within that history. I’ll come back to this point briefly at the end of my talk.

Now, what are the circumstances and developments that have given rise to the possibility, speaking very broadly, of an intelligentsia of the right? There’s much to say about this, but I will confine my remarks to three major developments, the first of which is the death of American conservatism, and particularly the movement conservative ideology that emerged during the Cold War and culminated in Reagan’s presidency.

When I speak of the “death of movement conservatism” I do not mean to suggest that there are no people who would claim to remain in its tradition, or that such claims would be entirely false from the perspective of any particular professed Reaganite movement holdout. Indeed, at this point I know better than to underestimate the cluelessness of aspirational suburbia, especially in its Baby Boomer instantiations, whose status angst continues to generate a modicum of genuine demand for the kinds of Paul Singer subsidized, upper middle brow think pieces that appear in glossy legacy rags like National Review. But I digress.

When I say that movement conservatism is dead I mean that the circumstances that once provided a certain coherence and viability to the three chief components of the movement conservative coalition no longer exist. More specifically, the so-called fusionism that attempted to reconcile socially conservative religious traditionalism of the Kirkean variety with a generally libertarian free market capitalism only made sense within a now defunct or non-existent Cold War context. It is no accident then that this coalition proved most successful during Reagan’s presidency, which oversaw the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

Fusionism was so called because it was able to construct a narrative that fused together traditionalist Burkean social conservatives and religious Christians, firstly, Cold-War hawks (Cold Warriors), secondly, and free market economic types (including libertarians like Friedman), finally, together. My central claim with respect to fusionism is that the tripartite coalition to which it refers makes no internal sense by itself, but rather it borrows its coherence artificially not only from the geopolitical threat posed by the USSR, but also from its reactive opposition to communist ideology as such.

Whereas fusionism is contingent and artificial in its American conservative expression, something similar to fusionism is imbedded much more essentially into communist doctrine at least in its classical Marxist forms. Karl Marx’s theory integrated its atheism with a dialectical materialism, which was at the same time an economic doctrine. The very real fusionism that belonged to classical Marxist theory made the reactive and contingent fusionism in America between free-market libertarians and religious Christian social conservatives possible; furthermore, the fact that this enemy atheistic-economic ideology received its expression in a major competing World Power made the hawkish foreign policy element a natural part of this coalition.

With the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the artificial supports providing temporary coherence to movement conservatism began to disintegrate. The full impact of this disintegration, however, enjoyed a certain postponement; partially this was due to the “holiday from history” that characterized the period of peace and economic prosperity between the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11; and partially because the self-identified conservatives’ response to 9/11 was a desperate and implausible attempt to portray Islamic Terror as the new Soviet-type threat in a way that would preserve the basic logic of the Reagan coalition. This band-aid job worked for a bit, but ultimately proved incoherent. Now with the failures of the Bush foreign policy plain to see, and with the middle class evaporating due, among other things, to the intensification of certain structural features of the economy, the irrelevance and inadequacy of movement conservatism can be felt rather than merely thought.

I ought to note that my analysis of the ahistorical and irrelevant character of fusionist movement conservatism is not strictly speaking a philosophical critique of, say, Meyer’s project. Meyer’s lack of philosophical depth probably was indispensable to the creation of a viable narrative on which to build a political coalition. My point is that that viability itself depended on a certain ideological and historical context that no longer exists.

The virtue of the increasingly indisputable collapse of movement conservatism is that the actual political configuration post-Cold War can be understood with greater clarity. Of course, there were further obfuscations pertaining to the role of an intellectual.

If somebody like Kojeve could have envisaged the role of an intellectual during the Cold War as working to reify a Stalinist universal and homogeneous state, Fukuyama’s modification of Kojeve upon the fall of the Berlin wall would simply suggest that the intellectual’s role would be to help reify the universal homogeneous state in its newly discovered historically appropriate instantiation via global democratic capitalism, human rights, and so forth.

There are many problems with Fukuyama’s thesis, but the one immediately relevant here is that so much of the debate surrounding his particular end of history thesis is that, whether one agreed with it or not, the debate was framed in such a way that obscured the true political configuration that emerged. That is, the discussion surrounding Fukuyama’s end of history thesis largely took for granted that the opposing forces in question were, on the one hand, capitalist globalization bolstered by democratic universalist philosophy, and, on the other, recidivist and reactionary tribalism. This characterization obscures the actual situation of the post-Cold War West in which the dominant “global” paradigm seems to be characterized by an unexpected and still not adequately explored connection between a certain masochistic religion of identity politics, global multinational capitalism, and the military industrial complex.

The connection has been explored a bit by Gottfried and Greenwald. My insight into this horrifying development is that it makes sense structurally in terms of a certain confluence of Nietzschean and Marxist factors. The Marxist side of what’s going on—that is, the side that accounts for certain social and class developments on account of underlying economic or material developments, has to do with the increasingly questionable role of the middle and working class under contemporary conditions governed by the underlying radical logic of economies of scale that characterizes the development of our integrated techno-corporate-global system. For example, with technological automation, integration, and economies of scale, the threshold for becoming a truly productive and valuable contributor to the economy is increasing dramatically—a process by which we little people become mere trivial zeros in the grand scheme of a rotten globo-corporate elite’s proprietary zeta function. What results is an ever increasing number of middle class Westerners who are shut out of the elite and economic relevance of the productive economy generally, and an increasing jealousy on the part of those in the elite to guard and protect their status.

But the increasing number of working-class, middle-class, upper-middle class, and even wealthy but not ultra-wealthy and connected pose [sic] a distinct problem, because unlike the imported masses from the developing world, they have a proven capacity to organize politically, and certain historical expectations regarding liberty and self-government. Whereas the Cultural Marxists may have resented the bourgeois [sic, in all cases] on account of the bourgeois hindering the progression to a Marxist utopia, and resented the working class for not previously universally mobilizing against the bourgeois as was expected and predicted by Classical Marxists, the Corporate Marxists resent the bourgeois for preventing the natural progression toward a system like Brazil, in which a vanishingly small wealthy, gated, insulated elite lords it over hordes of easily controlled helots. Brazil is the new Marxist utopia for the Corporate Marxists, if you’ll forgive the term, though utopia might be an inapt term given the distinct plausibility of this eventuality.

I mentioned that there was a Nietzschean component to this dynamic in addition to a Marxist one. Indeed, though Nietzschean explanations are often contrasted with Marxist ones as the psychological to the material, yet in this case the Nietzschean psychological diagnosis of slave morality, masochism, whatever you want to call it actually operates in conjunction with the emerging class dynamic insofar as it serves to pacify or neutralize what would otherwise be an increasingly problematic class for the elite.

So this little sketch of the post-Cold War situation in the West is quite a bit different from the idealized model of a universalist classical liberalism of human rights bolstering a global capitalism as envisaged by Fukuyama. And this alternative account might therefore leave room for an appropriately historical alternative to the dominant paradigm, which is not possible in Fukuyama’s account in which the only alternative [sic] to democratic capitalist globalization are reactionary and therefore ultimately ahistorical.

I want to conclude this talk by giving a brief characterization of some structural dynamics that I think are conducive to the growth of a formidable intelligentsia that would function as an alternative to the dominant paradigm of the post-Cold War West.

This dominant paradigm, sometimes called globalization, ought to be understood according to its institutional reality. That is, just as the dominant system is not really characterized by universal human rights and capitalism as understood in reading packets, but rather according to the Marxist-Nietzschean dynamic described above, so must the associated term globalization undergo a similar reality check. Whatever fancy and idealized theories used to describe it, globalization in the real sense refers to a particular set of interests and a common investment in a particular assortment of untruths. Global democracy in reality refers to a specific geopolitical alliance with little to do with democracy; the same countries have a common stake in a certain reckless and unsustainable monetary policy through the coordination of various central banks taking on enormous debt; global free trade is in fact the trade deals written by lobbyists in dark rooms. The errors associated with globalization, and particularly those associated with immigration and monetary policy, are so large that a bubble has been created out of desperate attempts to avoid the reckoning with reality.

[The foregoing paragraph is good, but requires an essay to explain. For example, which “untruths”?]

What does this have to do with the emergence of an oppositional intelligentsia? Well, much is said about the importance of the working class in the politics of anti-globalization, precisely because the economic model of globalization has the effect of casting more and more people out of the middle class. This is true, though I would also argue that very similar forces are leading to an increasing group of extremely intelligent young people who will be either unemployed or underemployed. The easy middle class [sic] existence that helped keep the Boomers so pleasantly docile in the face of the nation’s transformation doesn’t exist as a possibility for many my age and younger. So the opportunity cost of defection is diminishing. As defection accelerates, parallel institutions are formed that in turn diminish the marginal cost of future defections. There is a logic of a cascade effect at work.

[Cascading successes, instead of failures? I like it.]

Problems exist on the side of the elite as well. One of the paradoxes of our time is Mittleschicht verschwindet mittelmaessigkeit herrscht. That is, middle class disappears and mediocrity reigns. Competition is so intense in the academic world and the winners are less impressive than ever. My explanation for this is precisely that the reigning paradigm is a bubble, and this means that just as available jobs diminish so do the desired qualifications for the jobs change. More important is that the job be used to sustain the lie behind the bubble, which requires intellectual mediocrity or timidity, usually both. So in conjunction with the increasing incentives for defection is the possibility that young, ambitious smart people have less and less of an obvious place in the ever shrinking number of jobs sanctioned by the dominant system.

[Mittleschicht verschwindet mittelmaessigkeit herrscht. Beattie italicized this sentence, as if it were a quotation, or a vernacular phrase, but it is neither, and it’s a bloody mess. It contains two nouns, both of which are missing articles, and the capitalization and punctuation are wrong. “Mittleschicht” and “mittelmaessigkeit” (die Mittelmäßigkeit) are nouns, and lack articles and must both be capitalized, and the phrase requires a comma after the second word. I may be a comma,nist, when it comes to English, but that’s because I’m a German speaker.]

I’m over my time. Suffice it to say I see certain structure [sic] features of our situation that bode very well for the emergence of an intellectual class that is opposed to globalization in its present form. As I mentioned in the beginning, I’m not sure whether what will emerge could be classified in left-right terminology.

Because my feeling is optimistic for politics and culture in the medium term, I want to close with a note of not pessimism but caution. The optimistic structural dynamics I allude to say nothing about the underlying philosophical problems contributing to the spiritual deficiencies of the West. I cannot assume that political victories against our corrupt system will necessarily translate into or emerge from something of real philosophical significance, and might actually impede it. This philosophical problem is one I originally wanted to address, but felt that it was beyond the scope of what I could do here.

Heidegger closed one of his famously provocative analyses of Technology [sic] with a quote from the German poet Hoelderlin: “Wo aber Gefahr ist, waescht [sic] das Rettende auch.” (“Where the danger is, so grows the saving element.”)

[Beattie wrote “Where the danger is, so washes the saving element.” He meant to write “waechst” (wachsen, grows), but instead wrote “waescht” (waeschen, washes).]

In light of the possibility of political and cultural success, but continued philosophical and spiritual darkness, I close with the following modification: “Hinter das Rettende liegt auch das Gefahr.” (“Behind salvation danger also lies.”)

[Danger (Gefahr) has a feminine gender in German. Thus, it is die Gefahr, not das Gefahr. Oh, but everything’s wrong with Beattie’s stab at German! He also got the case wrong with “das Rettende.” He was trying to turn a variation on a line from a poem by Friedrich Hölderlin (1770-1843), “Patmos,” that the Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) was particularly fond of.

If I’m not mistaken, Beattie should have written, “Hinter dem Rettenden liegt auch die Gefahr.”

Nobody but Hölderlin writes “das Rettende” (the Savior) as a noun, as opposed to an adjective (“the saving ….” something).
 


Carl Schmitt
 

Beattie had to be trying to impress his hosts, Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer. Richard has dabbled in German, Paul is fluent in it, and both are, or have at times been, “Schmittianer,” followers of the German fascist philosopher, Carl Schmitt (1888-1985). Schmitt was the most brilliant political and legal thinker in the German language, but he was a nihilist and lacked all personal integrity. He would invoke the names of Hobbes, Donoso Cortes, and Joseph deMaistre, but his true philosophical godfather was Nietzsche (1844-1900), who was an epistemological and moral relativist. Schmitt had been an opponent of Nazism during the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), but after the 1933 appointment of Hitler by President Paul von Hindenburg and Hitler’s suspension of the constitution, Schmitt became a Johnny-come-lately Nazi, and he who had had Jewish friends now publicly stabbed Jews in the back, in order to ingratiate himself with his new comrades. He failed. In 1986, I dubbed Schmitt der Mephistopheles des Modernen Staates (the Mephistopheles of the Modern State).

Paul should have told Beattie that his written German was poor.]
 


Friedrich Nietzsche
 

Thank you.

Darren J. Beattie is a former speechwriter for President Donald J. Trump. He earned a B.S. in mathematics from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in political theory from Duke University for his doctoral thesis, "Martin Heidegger's Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity." He has taught political theory at Duke University, Humboldt University in Berlin, and Friedrich Alexander University in Erlangen, Germany. He is currently writing a book on the intellectual foundations of Trumpism. Follow him on Twitter @DarrenJBeattie