Why Randians care about me
At the website The New Clarion, a Randian asks his fellow Randians:
Hey Madmax (and others), why does the subject of Larry Auster keep popping up in comments here? He is of little significance except as an example of a core conservative. He mirrors Kos—each thinks that moving to the so-called “extreme” is the solution for their side.To which Madmax replies:
I mention Auster because he is the most consistent defender of core conservative ideology that I have found. He is a blend of Augustinian Christianity, Burkean and Kirkian conservatism and materialist inspired racism all supported by Platonic epistemology. I think a good case can be made that his “Traditionalism” may be the M2 phenomenon that Peikoff predicts. We shouldn’t assume that we will get an egalitarian version of socialist Christianity. We very well could get the old-school non-egalitarian version. On every subject Auster gives that view. You learn far more about the conservative movement reading Auster than reading Prager or Medved or even Rush Limbaugh.Let us hope that Madmax is right, and that a non-egalitarian, race-realist, pro-Western civilization version of Christianity is the wave of the future. However, from our point of view, things seem to be going in just the opposite direction, with an almost total dominance of Christianity by its liberal varieties. As Bruce B. puts it in another entry, all Christians today, with only a handful of exceptions, believe in a Christianity that (as I had put it) “leads to racial and cultural consequences that are indistinguishable from those of liberalism.”
Note added, November 18
I of course disagree with the description of my position on race as materialist. Materialism means the reduction of phenomena to matter or epiphenomena of matter. I do not do this. Madmax thinks I’m a materialist because, in his Randian ideological view, if you say that the physical dimension of our being matters at all, you’re a materalist.
Nevertheless, he has, to my surprise, understood and expressed well the essential components of my position, the three dimensions of human reality which traditionalism seeks to articulate and to defend from universalistic ideologicies: the spiritual-transcendent (which he calls “Augustinian Christianity”); the social-traditional (which he calls “Burkean and Kirkian conservatism”), and the natural-biological which he calls . “materialist inspired racism” but which I call moral racialism, and which I describe as a common sense appreciation of the fact that our physicality, including our racial particularity, is a part of what we are, along with other aspects of our being, each in its place, each doing its proper job and having the natural significance it has. Finally, participating in all three of these dimensions of our being and mediating among them, there is our individual psyche or consciousness.
By the way, I don’t know what the “M2 phenomenon” discusssed by Randian author Leonard Peikoff means. Here is a discussion where the “secular m2” belief is mentioned, i.e., Communism, but M2 itself is not defined. I’m guessing that in the Randians’ terminology, M2 means the evil Christian “mystics of the spirit,” as contrasted with the evil Communist “mystics of muscle.” Remember that in the charming Randian worldview, people who believe in God are as evil as Communists.
I found this Wikipedia article about Peikoff that was informative.Daniel R. writes:
The identifier “M2” comes from Leonard Peikoff’s DIM hypothesis. Basically, you can either handle concepts by disintegrating them, misintegrating them, or properly integrating them (hence D-I-M). “D” is associated with leftism and nihilism, “M” with (contemporary) rightism and religion, and “I” with Objectivism. The numeric tag indicates the “principled” variety. In other words, Larry Auster engages in misintegration as a matter of principle. By contrast, a leftist who frequently made the unprincipled exception would probably be D1.Alan Roebuck writes:
You asked what “M2” means. Having nothing better to do, I did a bit of Googling:LA replies:
Thanks to Daniel R. and Alan Roebuck for this information.LA continues:
Mr. Roebuck says that the Randians “have declared themselves to be enemies of historical Western Civilization, and we ought to take them at their word.”Daniel R. writes:
Regarding Alan Roebuck’s “Objectivists identify as enemies of historical Western Civilization” point: This is not how they see it. Objectivists view themselves as the proper heirs to the Western tradition in which Christianity gradually improves until it becomes secular, market-friendly conservatism in the Enlightenment, and finally reaches its full flowering with the publication of “The Fountainhead.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 17, 2009 12:04 PM | Send