/lit/ - Literature

>>1035576

I know there's a point to this, but I just can't see it.

I liked it better when it was called Leviathan

Is he implying that Tage is a neocon?
Wut.

>Luciferian

If by that you mean an illumination, then yeah.

Or if by that you are equating Lucifer withSatan, lolno

>includes familiar villains of neoconservatism--Marx

It always interests me to think most modern hardcore Neocons were once Marxists.

hurr

>As a guiding narrative, democracy poses Lindbom's "constitutional" question: "Who will rule, God or man?" In Lindbom's account, Western democracy is part of a Luciferian rebellion that seeks to displace God in the name of human equality, or as Claes Ryn writes in the introduction, "to establish the Kingdom of Man."

That seems incredibly convoluted and mythologized. I mean, it seems like he's making a fairly well-regarded point about the distinction between divine law and the law of reason (essentially) but doing it in a way that makes him seem completely insane.

>>1035618
well, it makes sense if you look at the neocon ideology. there's so many correspondences there, between neoconservatism and marxism, in terms of their fundamental worldview - they switched sides, but they're still the same people. just replace the dictatorship of the proletariat as the end of history with the free-market liberal democracy, and you're golden, pretty much.

Fucking neocons.

>>1035599

Hobbes was an atheist though, or as close to one. But you're right regarding the hierachies bit. You have to go back to Aquinas to find the last great statements on behalf of Christianity.

>>1035632

>You have to go back to Aquinas to find the last great statements on behalf of Christianity.
Have you gone mad?

>>1035630

Damn true believers

>>1035630
Neoconservatism would be closer to Leninist Marxism than anything else. Rule by an enlightened elite for the greater good of society and all that.

>>1035642
I'm not saying that Marxism is better - I disagree with both, and the intellectual heritage and worldview they share is a huge part of the reason why.

I'm not saying one way or t'other

Read "True Believers" by Eric Hoffer. It pretty much feeds into the idea some that people are inherently fanatical, regardless of which ideology they choose to espouse at any time, like hardcore nazis after WW2 switching over to become Russian Comissars or the like.

>>1035638

I ain't even mad. Unless you count repetition of moral philosophy as a form of progress.

>>1035676
>Was aimed at >>1035664

>>1035652
I'd actually think somewhere along Trotskyism, considering the theory of spreading revolution and whatnot.

>>1035676
Hannah Arendt has a somewhat similar idea in Origins of Totalitarianism: the actual ideology of the totalitarian movements wasn't particularly important (so long as it met certain criteria) - what mattered was its function, the ideological certainty it gave people. And this is why (she argues) the Soviet and Nazi governments functioned quite similarly.

I think her argument is somewhat more hooked in to the specific social circumstances of Europe at the time - she definitely doesn't argue that some people are just inherently open to totalitarian ideas. But it's a similar argument.

>>1035652

Except that isn't what Leninist Marxism says. It's about setting up a party and political structure which the working class can subsequently populate and direct, in an organised fashion. It's the "vanguards" which some people construe as a form of elitism, but the truth of that largely depends on the circumstances of time and place.

"Neoconservatives" propose nothing of the sort. You might rough out parallels in regards to the convergence of corporate and military interests defining foreign policy. But that's about it.

both are stuck in grand system struggles.