Counter-Reformation, 2021 Edition
January 16, 2021 5:21 PM Subscribe
The techniques of this movement start with insults and propaganda and work their way up through boycotts and demonstrations to discriminatory laws. Then comes stochastic violence followed by planned violence. An important point is that it doesn’t start with atrocities. It begins with scapegoating, stigmatizing, and dehumanizing the targeted group(s); political speech. The true believers incrementally escalate their behavior. By the time they reach planned violence, there is no going back.
A really interesting essay equating the violence of the Counter-Reformation (1550-1650) with what's happening in the United States right now. Published last September but could have been published in the past week. Also a very interesting take on the psychology of those who view themselves as dispossessed, and on the stranglehold of money on the political process.
A really interesting essay equating the violence of the Counter-Reformation (1550-1650) with what's happening in the United States right now. Published last September but could have been published in the past week. Also a very interesting take on the psychology of those who view themselves as dispossessed, and on the stranglehold of money on the political process.
Bare minimum, if you can afford tactical gear, handguns, ammo, and a trip to DC including hotel accommodations, you're probably not poor.
posted by SansPoint at 6:00 PM on January 16, 2021 [54 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 6:00 PM on January 16, 2021 [54 favorites]
Often these are the “New Poor,” once thriving but recently down on their luck.
Some of the participants in the Capitol riot flew there on private jets. They stayed in hotels that cost hundreds a night. These aren’t people down on their luck.
[on preview, jinx]
posted by mhoye at 6:06 PM on January 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
Some of the participants in the Capitol riot flew there on private jets. They stayed in hotels that cost hundreds a night. These aren’t people down on their luck.
[on preview, jinx]
posted by mhoye at 6:06 PM on January 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
if you can afford tactical gear, handguns, ammo
That kind of cosplay doesn't come cheap.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:10 PM on January 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
That kind of cosplay doesn't come cheap.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:10 PM on January 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
I think "New Poor" is a paraphrase of the 1951 book, and not essential to the theory.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:15 PM on January 16, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:15 PM on January 16, 2021 [10 favorites]
It's hilarious how many people are holding on with a death grip to the fact that the Trump supporters who could afford to show up to in DC to riot on Jan 6th weren't poor, therefore economics have nothing to do with trumpism.
posted by Reyturner at 6:23 PM on January 16, 2021 [21 favorites]
posted by Reyturner at 6:23 PM on January 16, 2021 [21 favorites]
Watching the events of the US from a safe distance, from the article
'A group of people feel that they are losing power, status, and economic success. Often these are the “New Poor,” once thriving but recently down on their luck. They feel as if the center of power has shifted away from them.'
I would consider that the use of the quotes identifies the real issue - the center of power has shifted away from them - grievance culture as demonstrated by the Capitol coup.
Written 30 Sep 2020 - so an analysis providing a falsifiable hypothesis, which has proved to be true.
Thank you for posting
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 6:26 PM on January 16, 2021 [7 favorites]
'A group of people feel that they are losing power, status, and economic success. Often these are the “New Poor,” once thriving but recently down on their luck. They feel as if the center of power has shifted away from them.'
I would consider that the use of the quotes identifies the real issue - the center of power has shifted away from them - grievance culture as demonstrated by the Capitol coup.
Written 30 Sep 2020 - so an analysis providing a falsifiable hypothesis, which has proved to be true.
Thank you for posting
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 6:26 PM on January 16, 2021 [7 favorites]
For more comparisons with ancient and modern insurrections, check out the latest post from ACOUP
posted by rebent at 6:33 PM on January 16, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by rebent at 6:33 PM on January 16, 2021 [7 favorites]
if you think a banana clip is a hair accessory, you might not rich.
"is enough to say that it got brutally violent, with torture and executions, and was finally ended by a vicious war, now known as the Thirty Years War."
I can see that. The oil wars of 1990-2020 seem apt but a mix bag of religious and resource wars. Hoffer is pretty well explained, imo.
"Hoffer consequently argues that the appeal of mass movements is interchangeable: in the Germany of the 1920s and the 1930s, for example, the Communists and National Socialists were ostensibly enemies, but sometimes enlisted each other's members, since they competed for the same kind of marginalized, angry, frustrated people."
'Buckley v. Valeo'. YES. The power vacuum left by Nixon at first diminished the power of the presidency which quickly leaped to The National Emergencies Act in 1976.
(introduced in the House as H.R. 3884 by Peter W. Rodino (D–NJ) on February 27, 1975)
nice post.
posted by clavdivs at 7:04 PM on January 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
"is enough to say that it got brutally violent, with torture and executions, and was finally ended by a vicious war, now known as the Thirty Years War."
I can see that. The oil wars of 1990-2020 seem apt but a mix bag of religious and resource wars. Hoffer is pretty well explained, imo.
"Hoffer consequently argues that the appeal of mass movements is interchangeable: in the Germany of the 1920s and the 1930s, for example, the Communists and National Socialists were ostensibly enemies, but sometimes enlisted each other's members, since they competed for the same kind of marginalized, angry, frustrated people."
'Buckley v. Valeo'. YES. The power vacuum left by Nixon at first diminished the power of the presidency which quickly leaped to The National Emergencies Act in 1976.
(introduced in the House as H.R. 3884 by Peter W. Rodino (D–NJ) on February 27, 1975)
nice post.
posted by clavdivs at 7:04 PM on January 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
There's a seanmpuckett quote that I always think of when people try to argue that Trump's supporters are poor and put-upon: "Capitalism is a giant combine harvester chewing up society more or less in order from poorest to richest."
Trump's supporters aren't the ones that are getting harvested, they are people that are very angry that the old order doesn't hold, where they could be sure all the PoC would get ground up first. So yeah, they are vaguely aware that things are going to shit overall, but their reaction is not to work against the harvester, their reaction is to kneecap other people.
posted by tavella at 7:39 PM on January 16, 2021 [38 favorites]
Trump's supporters aren't the ones that are getting harvested, they are people that are very angry that the old order doesn't hold, where they could be sure all the PoC would get ground up first. So yeah, they are vaguely aware that things are going to shit overall, but their reaction is not to work against the harvester, their reaction is to kneecap other people.
posted by tavella at 7:39 PM on January 16, 2021 [38 favorites]
I mean the main point of the piece is the powerful financing of politics, so even if the piece didn't explain class warfare and reactionary demographics very well, the main message still stands.
posted by polymodus at 8:39 PM on January 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 8:39 PM on January 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
people try to argue that Trump's supporters are poor
they are people that are very angry that the old order doesn't hold
Sheesh. This is what the article actually says. In lots of words. Nowhere does it claim Trump's supporters are poor. RTFA, it's not very long.
Since I have actually read the article I'll offer my own criticism: the idea that secularism didn't make inroads in American society until the early 21st century seems clueless. By the 1970s, Conservative Christians were on the outside shrieking that the reigning creed of government & society, "Secular Humanism", was a grave threat to our souls. In short, this article's view of the last 70 years makes me think of this Perry Bible Fellowship cartoon.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 8:41 PM on January 16, 2021 [7 favorites]
they are people that are very angry that the old order doesn't hold
Sheesh. This is what the article actually says. In lots of words. Nowhere does it claim Trump's supporters are poor. RTFA, it's not very long.
Since I have actually read the article I'll offer my own criticism: the idea that secularism didn't make inroads in American society until the early 21st century seems clueless. By the 1970s, Conservative Christians were on the outside shrieking that the reigning creed of government & society, "Secular Humanism", was a grave threat to our souls. In short, this article's view of the last 70 years makes me think of this Perry Bible Fellowship cartoon.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 8:41 PM on January 16, 2021 [7 favorites]
The article put a lot of stuff together but I'm not sure I agree with everything.
One way to answer the "is it economics or racism or both or neither?" question is by means of looking at what people believe and how they came to believe it. Obviously people have come to believe some heinous lies, which happen to often be racist. (vote stealing, immigration is a problem, etc)
But I think the story is a bit different than "because they were racist" or "because they were precarious" or even "because capital sows division in order to grow its profits and maintain structures of power and exploitation." The conservative ecosystem is a whole smorgasbord of shit that offers clear, despicable villains and delusions of of a grand crusade. It's designed to manufacture outrage. But another question is when and how that actually resonates with people. Why does somebody start watching it in the first place and why do they get submerged? A sense of anger (unfairness of the bank bailouts)? A sense of purpose (bullshit about western civilization is being attacked, triggered by concern about values that are actually good -- or q-anon true believers)? A sense of community (q-anon's insider treasure hunt aspect)?
Both status threat and anti-elitism are real things that motivate people, and right-wing explanations play on plenty of concerns that are at least semi-valid. But they're all packaged up in a warped worldview that presents a funhouse-mirror view of actual power relations in the world.
Obviously the insurrection at the capital wasn't primarily a bunch of poor people -- poor and oppressed people don't feel entitled to waltz in to government buildings and assume they aren't doing anything wrong. And obviously there was a confederate flag and they were blaming minorities for having voted, so there's definitely a racism aspect. But more generally it was was a lot of people that had found a lot of meaning in being violently opposed to the current system as they understand it. Most of that understanding is based on outright lies, but do they believe those lies because they are racist and/or economically anxious or because their media diet of evil horseshit has gradually led them down the garden path?
I guess my mental model is something like: a normal person has some possibly legitimate grievances with how society works, and Fox (or conservative YouTube) does a decent job of validating that worry and then the hooks are in.
Maybe I'm being too nice and most of the insurrectionists were white supremacists born and raised, but I guess I have a harder time connecting the amorphous idea of white male counter reformation with individuals excited about Obama who then go on to storm the Capitol on Trump's behest. I think those examples at least speak to a more specific way that modern institutions fail to give people voice and agency in constructive ways, which include both a shitty economic system bathed in corrosive economic ideology, and plenty of embedded and unexamined racist systems and behaviors. The article basically frames this in terms of the democratic party being corrupted by elite interests, which yeah, I agree with. Definitely get money out of politics. But I think there's a more specific way that populism plays on people's psychology that radicalizes them that it's hard for liberals to see. Trump's policies were generally horrible but he made a whole lot of hay out of everything he was supposedly doing for people. Liberals have been too cowed by "small government" conservatives (more than big money? maybe?) to try and 'prove' themselves in that way, other than with complex means-tested programs that people aren't even supposed to notice are benefiting them.
posted by ropeladder at 8:53 PM on January 16, 2021 [13 favorites]
One way to answer the "is it economics or racism or both or neither?" question is by means of looking at what people believe and how they came to believe it. Obviously people have come to believe some heinous lies, which happen to often be racist. (vote stealing, immigration is a problem, etc)
But I think the story is a bit different than "because they were racist" or "because they were precarious" or even "because capital sows division in order to grow its profits and maintain structures of power and exploitation." The conservative ecosystem is a whole smorgasbord of shit that offers clear, despicable villains and delusions of of a grand crusade. It's designed to manufacture outrage. But another question is when and how that actually resonates with people. Why does somebody start watching it in the first place and why do they get submerged? A sense of anger (unfairness of the bank bailouts)? A sense of purpose (bullshit about western civilization is being attacked, triggered by concern about values that are actually good -- or q-anon true believers)? A sense of community (q-anon's insider treasure hunt aspect)?
Both status threat and anti-elitism are real things that motivate people, and right-wing explanations play on plenty of concerns that are at least semi-valid. But they're all packaged up in a warped worldview that presents a funhouse-mirror view of actual power relations in the world.
Obviously the insurrection at the capital wasn't primarily a bunch of poor people -- poor and oppressed people don't feel entitled to waltz in to government buildings and assume they aren't doing anything wrong. And obviously there was a confederate flag and they were blaming minorities for having voted, so there's definitely a racism aspect. But more generally it was was a lot of people that had found a lot of meaning in being violently opposed to the current system as they understand it. Most of that understanding is based on outright lies, but do they believe those lies because they are racist and/or economically anxious or because their media diet of evil horseshit has gradually led them down the garden path?
I guess my mental model is something like: a normal person has some possibly legitimate grievances with how society works, and Fox (or conservative YouTube) does a decent job of validating that worry and then the hooks are in.
Maybe I'm being too nice and most of the insurrectionists were white supremacists born and raised, but I guess I have a harder time connecting the amorphous idea of white male counter reformation with individuals excited about Obama who then go on to storm the Capitol on Trump's behest. I think those examples at least speak to a more specific way that modern institutions fail to give people voice and agency in constructive ways, which include both a shitty economic system bathed in corrosive economic ideology, and plenty of embedded and unexamined racist systems and behaviors. The article basically frames this in terms of the democratic party being corrupted by elite interests, which yeah, I agree with. Definitely get money out of politics. But I think there's a more specific way that populism plays on people's psychology that radicalizes them that it's hard for liberals to see. Trump's policies were generally horrible but he made a whole lot of hay out of everything he was supposedly doing for people. Liberals have been too cowed by "small government" conservatives (more than big money? maybe?) to try and 'prove' themselves in that way, other than with complex means-tested programs that people aren't even supposed to notice are benefiting them.
posted by ropeladder at 8:53 PM on January 16, 2021 [13 favorites]
It's hilarious how many people are holding on with a death grip to the fact that the Trump supporters who could afford to show up to in DC to riot on Jan 6th weren't poor, therefore economics have nothing to do with trumpism.
Eh. The data haven't held up the initial hypothesis from 2016 that support for Trump was driven by decreased economic status, from what I've read. But even if Trumpists have suffered a loss of economic power rather than just a (relative) loss of status in other ways (in short, racism and misogyny becoming less socially acceptable), the demographics are such that calling them the new poor is definitely inaccurate. That is, I think, what a lot of folks are responding to.
'Course, racism, classism and economic inequality, etc. are intricately tied together in the US. So I'd agree that it's unlikely that economics have nothing to do with Trumpism in any way... but that can be true at the same time as it being true that Trump supporters are not, by and large, driven by any sort of immediate or direct anxiety or loss of status in regards to their own economic situation.
I guess I have a harder time connecting the amorphous idea of white male counter reformation with individuals excited about Obama who then go on to storm the Capitol on Trump's behest.
Don't forget the misogyny aspect. Also, from what I've read, it sounds like the Obama to Trump voters are a significant minority, and seem to be more concentrated among the ones that got sucked in through Q-anon or similar conspiracy theories. So it's not necessarily that their fundamental values have changed that much over the past eight years, but their grip on reality or understanding about what is or isn't true has experienced a substantial shift. Also also, given the number of times I've been told, in as many words or not, that I'm "not like those other girls/women", trust me when I note that one could most certainly have been a white Obama supporter and still hold more than enough unexamined racism baggage to be drawn to Trumpism via the racism angle.
posted by eviemath at 9:06 PM on January 16, 2021 [6 favorites]
Eh. The data haven't held up the initial hypothesis from 2016 that support for Trump was driven by decreased economic status, from what I've read. But even if Trumpists have suffered a loss of economic power rather than just a (relative) loss of status in other ways (in short, racism and misogyny becoming less socially acceptable), the demographics are such that calling them the new poor is definitely inaccurate. That is, I think, what a lot of folks are responding to.
'Course, racism, classism and economic inequality, etc. are intricately tied together in the US. So I'd agree that it's unlikely that economics have nothing to do with Trumpism in any way... but that can be true at the same time as it being true that Trump supporters are not, by and large, driven by any sort of immediate or direct anxiety or loss of status in regards to their own economic situation.
I guess I have a harder time connecting the amorphous idea of white male counter reformation with individuals excited about Obama who then go on to storm the Capitol on Trump's behest.
Don't forget the misogyny aspect. Also, from what I've read, it sounds like the Obama to Trump voters are a significant minority, and seem to be more concentrated among the ones that got sucked in through Q-anon or similar conspiracy theories. So it's not necessarily that their fundamental values have changed that much over the past eight years, but their grip on reality or understanding about what is or isn't true has experienced a substantial shift. Also also, given the number of times I've been told, in as many words or not, that I'm "not like those other girls/women", trust me when I note that one could most certainly have been a white Obama supporter and still hold more than enough unexamined racism baggage to be drawn to Trumpism via the racism angle.
posted by eviemath at 9:06 PM on January 16, 2021 [6 favorites]
Trump's supporters aren't the ones that are getting harvested, they are people that are very angry that the old order doesn't hold
Both parties are uneasy coalitions between groups that are definitely in some sense in the way of the combine and groups that aren’t.
posted by atoxyl at 9:33 PM on January 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
Both parties are uneasy coalitions between groups that are definitely in some sense in the way of the combine and groups that aren’t.
posted by atoxyl at 9:33 PM on January 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
I just watched BlackKkklansman last night. That movie definitely offers a lens through which racism does seem to be a main cause. However, I think an additional big factor is, and I know the term is not so popular here, neoliberalism. The piece does kind of describe it in the section on Democrats vs. Republicans, but a groundswell of people have figured out that for a long time both sides have been more or less playing an elaborate con game with the media complicit in keeping it going. Now they are angry but sadly easy to misdirect. Add to that the perennial paranoid style amped up with new technology and professional propaganda. As part of that paranoid style, the influence of Christian apocalypticism is a major influence as well.
posted by blue shadows at 9:44 PM on January 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by blue shadows at 9:44 PM on January 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
I would posit that it’s not that the Trumpists are “down on their luck”, but rather that they can see their luck running out in the very near future, as they become more and more of a minority.
I was bothered by the author willfully (or so it appeared) ignoring the systematic violence visited upon minorities/BIPOC for virtually all of the 20th century. The Tulsa race riot was very definitely “stochastic violence”, and that is just one example.
I was also disturbed when he blithely said that “half the population” (women) couldn’t vote until the 20’s, while ignoring the percent of those women who were disenfranchised voters (BIPOC, largely).
Too many simple answers, IMO.
posted by dbmcd at 10:04 PM on January 16, 2021 [4 favorites]
I was bothered by the author willfully (or so it appeared) ignoring the systematic violence visited upon minorities/BIPOC for virtually all of the 20th century. The Tulsa race riot was very definitely “stochastic violence”, and that is just one example.
I was also disturbed when he blithely said that “half the population” (women) couldn’t vote until the 20’s, while ignoring the percent of those women who were disenfranchised voters (BIPOC, largely).
Too many simple answers, IMO.
posted by dbmcd at 10:04 PM on January 16, 2021 [4 favorites]
I'm not in a position to give a deep analysis of the interpretation of 20th and 21st American politics given here, but I can say as a specialist in 16th and 17th century European history that this is a pretty impoverished understanding of the religious upheaval of the period. The account given of the Counter-Reformation here is pretty cartoonish.
posted by pleasant_confusion at 10:09 PM on January 16, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by pleasant_confusion at 10:09 PM on January 16, 2021 [10 favorites]
the author begins in 1516, thumbnail sketch then to 1517, A reactionary posts his greivences, not through the back door but the front. Excommunication. Published Bible that's not Latin, Marrys an ex nun.
Epic stuff but it cemented the notion that the pope might not have the final word but the book. Like a constitutional crises were ruler such-such no longer has the mandate of heaven. Bringing the thirty years war into current politics is a stretch. The Avignon Papacy maybe...,"Almost a century and a half later, Protestant reformer Martin Luther wrote his treatise On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), but he claimed it had nothing to do with the Western Schism or papacy in Avignon."
posted by clavdivs at 10:54 PM on January 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
Epic stuff but it cemented the notion that the pope might not have the final word but the book. Like a constitutional crises were ruler such-such no longer has the mandate of heaven. Bringing the thirty years war into current politics is a stretch. The Avignon Papacy maybe...,"Almost a century and a half later, Protestant reformer Martin Luther wrote his treatise On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), but he claimed it had nothing to do with the Western Schism or papacy in Avignon."
posted by clavdivs at 10:54 PM on January 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
Yes, it reminded me a little of your old-school polymath blogs, which were awesome when the genius/crank ratio was just right. You'd get a lucid essay on the consequences of the Treaty of Westphalia, then a new interpretation of the meaning of the initiation rites of the Golden Dawn society, and so on.
posted by thelonius at 2:25 AM on January 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 2:25 AM on January 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
An intersection of causes would be how we talk about why people get together to protest and change the system; people take up arms against oppressors when those people are denied the results they believe they're entitled to. Today there are peole saying "Talking hasn't worked, let's try explosions and shooting."
I offer that to the thread, so that we ask commenters here why these groups of people (essentially) in support of the patriarchy and status quo aren't also describable through the progressive lens of intersectionality? That's rhetorical, we gain a lot for looking at the Venn diagram of things including race, wealth, status, agency, messaging, how-we-believe-to-be-true-what-we-believe-to-be-true and power, because any assessment and response also gains from looking for improvements across the spread of single-person through to system-as-a-whole.
posted by k3ninho at 2:46 AM on January 17, 2021
I offer that to the thread, so that we ask commenters here why these groups of people (essentially) in support of the patriarchy and status quo aren't also describable through the progressive lens of intersectionality? That's rhetorical, we gain a lot for looking at the Venn diagram of things including race, wealth, status, agency, messaging, how-we-believe-to-be-true-what-we-believe-to-be-true and power, because any assessment and response also gains from looking for improvements across the spread of single-person through to system-as-a-whole.
posted by k3ninho at 2:46 AM on January 17, 2021
Economically indifferent, corporate friendly social policies like marriage equality get through. A decent minimum wage and fair labor laws have no chance.
This article has aged so poorly, so quickly, that I suspect it's not worth a lot of attention, given that the thoroughly milquetoast Biden's first bill up to bat includes not just a national minimum wage increase but also the elimination of exceptions for tipped staff and the disabled (and somehow none of the people telling me what disabled people needed thought to mention it was legal in America to pay disabled people less what the fuck).
While I don't think I've ever seen the Counter-Reformation as a framing device, I've seen plenty of people get to 'Trumpism is a reactionary movement, paid for by elites who'd prefer to break society than pay their fair share of taxes, that appeals to people for whom the capitalist hierarchy works, even though it's also making them miserable' much earlier.
posted by Merus at 4:02 AM on January 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
This article has aged so poorly, so quickly, that I suspect it's not worth a lot of attention, given that the thoroughly milquetoast Biden's first bill up to bat includes not just a national minimum wage increase but also the elimination of exceptions for tipped staff and the disabled (and somehow none of the people telling me what disabled people needed thought to mention it was legal in America to pay disabled people less what the fuck).
While I don't think I've ever seen the Counter-Reformation as a framing device, I've seen plenty of people get to 'Trumpism is a reactionary movement, paid for by elites who'd prefer to break society than pay their fair share of taxes, that appeals to people for whom the capitalist hierarchy works, even though it's also making them miserable' much earlier.
posted by Merus at 4:02 AM on January 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
Relatedly at Ars Technica, a summary of research into "What motivates the motivated reasoning of pro-Trump conspiracists?"
posted by k3ninho at 4:13 AM on January 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by k3ninho at 4:13 AM on January 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
It's hilarious how many people are holding on with a death grip to the fact that the Trump supporters who could afford to show up to in DC to riot on Jan 6th weren't poor, therefore economics have nothing to do with trumpism.
I've always disliked when people employ their own personal sliding scale of poverty to buttress their preferred narrative.
You know when a salt-of-the-earth American is poor, when they can't afford to attend the insurrection because the Covid relief check hasn't come in yet.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:04 AM on January 17, 2021
I've always disliked when people employ their own personal sliding scale of poverty to buttress their preferred narrative.
You know when a salt-of-the-earth American is poor, when they can't afford to attend the insurrection because the Covid relief check hasn't come in yet.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:04 AM on January 17, 2021
"What motivates the motivated reasoning of pro-Trump conspiracists?"
That was an interesting read. Aggrieved white male identity does seem part and parcel of the larger fascist movement the right is pushing America towards.
American Fascism: It Has Happened Here
And this, too, was how fascism always operated in practice: it was nothing if not opportunistic. What Paxton calls its “mobilizing passions” catalyze fascism, which is propelled, as he notes, more by feelings than by thought. Only “the historic destiny of the group,” matters to fascists, he adds: “their only moral yardstick is the prowess of the race, of the nation, of the community. They claim legitimacy by no universal standard except a Darwinian triumph of the strongest community.” Its “hazy and synthetic doctrines,” combined with its ultra-nationalism and anti-intellectualism, mean that fascism is never a coherent set of ideological doctrines. Force takes the place of ideology, as the fascist strong man performs for his followers their sense of rightful dominance and rage that other groups, in embracing equality, reject their entitlements.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:33 AM on January 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
That was an interesting read. Aggrieved white male identity does seem part and parcel of the larger fascist movement the right is pushing America towards.
American Fascism: It Has Happened Here
And this, too, was how fascism always operated in practice: it was nothing if not opportunistic. What Paxton calls its “mobilizing passions” catalyze fascism, which is propelled, as he notes, more by feelings than by thought. Only “the historic destiny of the group,” matters to fascists, he adds: “their only moral yardstick is the prowess of the race, of the nation, of the community. They claim legitimacy by no universal standard except a Darwinian triumph of the strongest community.” Its “hazy and synthetic doctrines,” combined with its ultra-nationalism and anti-intellectualism, mean that fascism is never a coherent set of ideological doctrines. Force takes the place of ideology, as the fascist strong man performs for his followers their sense of rightful dominance and rage that other groups, in embracing equality, reject their entitlements.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:33 AM on January 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
So yeah, they are vaguely aware that things are going to shit overall, but their reaction is not to work against the harvester, their reaction is to kneecap other people.
To be fair, you don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than your friend.
posted by flabdablet at 10:15 AM on January 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
To be fair, you don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than your friend.
posted by flabdablet at 10:15 AM on January 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
It's hilarious how many people are holding on with a death grip to the fact that the Trump supporters who could afford to show up to in DC to riot on Jan 6th weren't poor, therefore economics have nothing to do with trumpism.
"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege", was Tommy Douglas' line.
posted by mhoye at 1:37 PM on January 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege", was Tommy Douglas' line.
posted by mhoye at 1:37 PM on January 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
I would definitely read about the Fremen Mirage, which is a great description of how toxic masculinity is related to anxiety about the rapidly improving civilisation the anxious are in, with historical examples, and how both are related to the mythical 'rugged wildman' that today we'd recognise as people like Bear Grylls.
It takes a detour to eviscerate the Spartan myth, which is definitely one of those historical groups that the macho can-survive-anything-civilisation-is-a-crutch people like to appropriate (your Spartan Sprints and suchlike).
posted by Merus at 11:29 PM on January 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
It takes a detour to eviscerate the Spartan myth, which is definitely one of those historical groups that the macho can-survive-anything-civilisation-is-a-crutch people like to appropriate (your Spartan Sprints and suchlike).
posted by Merus at 11:29 PM on January 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
buckley v valeo is the precedent to which those aspects of citizens united we popularly decry hew, the proposition that money is speech (or similarly-protected first amendment expressive/associative activity).
posted by 20 year lurk at 1:38 PM on January 18, 2021
posted by 20 year lurk at 1:38 PM on January 18, 2021
Taken from another thread but relevant: I know that Q is about saving currently living children, but I get the same vibes from them as from the militant pro-lifers.
Toxic masculinity is related to anxiety about the rapidly improving civilisation the anxious are in, with historical examples, and how both are related to the mythical 'rugged wildman' that today we'd recognise as people like Bear Grylls.
My take on QAnon and how it drew so many suburban moms in is that it is fascist feminism and a case of "wanna be oppressed so bad." In 2010~2015, activist movements gained momentum for legit, urgent reason (economic inequality, transgender rights abuses, police brutality, for example) and became the center of the national conversation. White suburban moms wanted to be involved but obviously, they are not really persecuted in the way marginalized groups are.
So someone invented child sex trafficking as a cause and now suburban moms are "activists" too.
posted by ichomp at 2:09 PM on January 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
Toxic masculinity is related to anxiety about the rapidly improving civilisation the anxious are in, with historical examples, and how both are related to the mythical 'rugged wildman' that today we'd recognise as people like Bear Grylls.
My take on QAnon and how it drew so many suburban moms in is that it is fascist feminism and a case of "wanna be oppressed so bad." In 2010~2015, activist movements gained momentum for legit, urgent reason (economic inequality, transgender rights abuses, police brutality, for example) and became the center of the national conversation. White suburban moms wanted to be involved but obviously, they are not really persecuted in the way marginalized groups are.
So someone invented child sex trafficking as a cause and now suburban moms are "activists" too.
posted by ichomp at 2:09 PM on January 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
« Older owl spotting | Toward a unified theory of the exurbs Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The domestic terrorists appeared to be mostly comfortable and well-fed. Some might have been recently unemployed by Trump's negligent response to the pandemic and the attendant downstream effects on non-tech sectors of the economy, but some also flew into DC on private jets. Some seditionists were paid for launching the attack in significant amounts of cryptocurrency. I think it is difficult to draw parallels based on economic insecurity or poverty, mainly because the majority of those involved appear to be neither economically insecure nor poor.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:41 PM on January 16, 2021 [42 favorites]