Your Papers, Please: Notion of Identity in Contemporary Identitarian Movements

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Mihai says:

    Regarding future plans, here it is a little something to ruin your day: don’t forget August Baruell. 😀

    Your plans sound like my study plans: extending in all direction, many fronts left open, always overwhelmed.

  2. coco says:

    Misao, dvije o identitetu:
    nekad je “deafult” bio metafizička koncepcija svijeta u kojoj je identitet bio ukorijenjen u necemu onkraj puke pojavnosti. Dočim je nakon “pobjede” nominalizma pitanje identeta postalo pitanje puke oznake, imena, etikete kojom iz ukupnosti kaotičnog (sic) perceptivnog univerzuma ljudski um izdvaja “jedinice” smisla iz čisto pragmaticnih pobuda (npr. “prezivljavanje”).
    Nakon tog prevrata(/inverzije) u temeljnom pogledu na svijet, identitet je postao dubiozan i na fundamentalan način ugrožen. Sve ovo što vidimo su varijacije na temu te ugroze.
    Mislim da bez “nove metafizike” odnosno razvoja slike svijeta koji bi korijen opažene stvarnosti tražio i u onom što je “iza” kulise čula i instrumentata , nema “stijene” koja bi zadržalo raspad svake smislene koncepcije identiteta odnosno njegove manipulacije.
    U današnjem kontekstu identitet može biti jedino mišljen apstraktno, kao nešto krajnje fiksno ili kao nešto krajnje fluidno- to jest ta ideja identiteta nema mjere (kao i svaka apstraktna/neukorijenjena misao).
    Ovisno o sklonostima ka lijevim ili desnim dijelovima ideološkog spektra, ideje o identitetu težit će više ka fluidnim (lijevo) ili više ka fiksnim (desno).
    No razrješnje ovog lelujanja na vjetrovima ideo-političkih strujanja može doći jedino na temeljima Nove Metafizike kao nove *praktične* znanosti o identitetu. No, ona nije “ready-made” data kroz bilo koju od raspoloživih predaja budući su ove u najboljem slučaju naznake nečega što je nekad bilo živo i što je nosilo stvarnost nekad, dok se danas takva praktična znanost tek treba izgraditi ili re-aktualizirati u (n)ovom vremenu.

  3. Han Fei says:

    With concern to this notion of identity, we have to ask a question – what did National Socialism represent as such? We can’t avoid this because it is precisely the iconography and one should say “the Myth” that still serves as the focal point of attraction for the perpetually bored youtuber who seeks to stroke his fragile little ego through assuming on the internet an identity that happens embody the most shocking transgression possible (I know, I’m projecting a bit here) in midst of a social atmosphere which “triggers” at the slightest hint of purported offensiveness of any kind.

    So to quote Heidi, how did NS stand with being? It evoked elements of things that were never present in German history, such as nativism embodied in blood and soil and a shared ethnic bond based on the commonality of all Germanic peoples with regards to their distant racial origin, it had no incentive to restore traditional authority structures, it was not even “socialism with German Characteristics”. Concerning the latter, if we were to weigh the term “NS” by the semantics of the two words that comprise it, then that would mean the ideology of the current German state remains quite unchanged!

    An ideology brimming with quite mutated forms spiritual doctrines, seemingly taking a page from both Social Darwinist hyper-utilitarian social philosophies of the day and tying them together with the (originally non-racist) ex-historic Aryan mysticism of the theosophists. Let’s not forget that the chief orchestrator of nazi genocides, Himmler had a head of basically swimming in these things.

    Here we clearly have something that was an ideological-metaphysical construct, an altogether artificial creation, which served to be identical to the motivating principle of the movement. This notion can be embodied in the sentence “2+2=Reich and 2+2=4 are identical statements”. Or “the party is the fuhrer and the fuhrer is the party”, and so on. Ironically this is also symbolized by the way the Nazis (mis)employed the swastika, a symbol, which in the context of 20th century popular consciousness, originated from the mystical Orient.

    Anyway I’m looking quite forward to your upcoming switch to hopefully more substantial and positive philosophical analyses of things which actually have relevance to the history of ideas. I’m getting quite concerned about your continuous focus on dissecting various kinds of contemporary madmen and peddlers of postmodern “mental viruses”. If you a bit about Warhammer lore, then you will recall how Ordo Malleus inquisitors don’t sleep at night, lest Chaos consume them in their dreams.

    • Ante says:

      ‘I’m getting quite concerned about your continuous focus on dissecting various kinds of contemporary madmen and peddlers of postmodern “mental viruses”. If you a bit about Warhammer lore, then you will recall how Ordo Malleus inquisitors don’t sleep at night, lest Chaos consume them in their dreams.’

      Haha, I’ve been thinking on how to put my recent feelings toward KT into words and never managed to formulate it in a way that would be this short, yet to the point.

    • Malić says:

      Dissecting the madmen takes half an hour, writing something about Thomas Aquinas half a month … that’s how I keep the site updated on weekly bases with an attempt to provide some real substance once a month if possible. Definitely, I’m taking KT into promised area (postmodern for “land”) of philosophy and other happier subjects.

      • Silent says:

        How about reviewing/analysing Jorjani’s ‘Prometheus and Atlas’? I have been thinking that someone competent should do that from a perspective of Traditional metaphysics and so on, especially as Jorjani’s has actually critiqued Guénon and the “perennial philosophy” without even having a rudimentary knowledge of his actual metaphysic. It might be interesting to consider how the thesis of Jorjani relates to what Guénon termed the stage of ‘counter-tradition’, all the more pertinent as Jorjani consciously takes the side of ‘spectral’ influences that by Christianity would be identified as luciferic, as the fallen angels.

        Did you read this, by the way?

        Am I the only one who find this somewhat ‘ominous’?

        • Malić says:

          I don’t have Jorjani’s book but from his speeches of which I heard few I get an impression that he is posthumanist of the far right bent. I don’t consider him very important.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *