I am not going to write much here about the essay. Latin integralists should be criticized; but should they be criticized based on the historical association of integralists with political movements deemed unsavory? At least he doesn't call them Naz1s! One of his criticisms of the Latin integralists is that they are young men who haven't grown up in institutions that would have enabled them to acquire republican virtue. He offers the Roman Catholic parish as an example of such an institution, and was mocked by Latin integralists for doing so. I can't disagree with them on that score, and find it difficult to believe that he has more "republican virtue" than the Latin integralists, nor does he have that status with which he can lecture Latin integralists. He isn't young, but he is barely middle-aged, and not a senior, and while some of the followers of Latin integralists are young, the prominent advocates are not. If he is going to "save" the young ones, what does he have to offer than parish life for them?
Arguably, republican virtue started to die out after 1865. And it is unlikely that any of these intellectuals will do the things that real American republicans would say are necessary, instead of some sort of LARPing through academia or the internet or social media.
Want to do something that is politically relevant and may even be necessary for the future? Get in shape, G&G up, and train. How many of these "conservatives" or "integralissts" are going to do that? In that respect, various prepper groups are way ahead in the game, and they don't need to preach about republican virtue as they are living it.
A Strawman and a Scotsman Walk into the Café de Flore by James M. Patterson
The critical alliances that integralists struck with fascists during the interwar years has had a considerable influence on neo-integralists from L. Brent Bozell’s Triumph to the present. https://t.co/DBeJeRiMBZ
— Law & Liberty (@LawLiberty) May 11, 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment