back
1 comments
So this guy is a character:

https://theworthyhouse.com/2021/06/17/the-foundationalist-ma...

Thus, the iron core of Foundationalism is that it opposes autonomic liberalism, and plans to destroy it as Foundationalism’s first act. Only when the Enlightenment, political philosophy based on false claims of wholesale human emancipation from all unchosen bonds, is both gone and wholly discredited is a new thing possible, for if not, the serpent will whisper his sweet lies in men’s ears forever, keeping them fixed in the dream become nightmare.

It'd be interesting to work out what the differences are between the philosophy described by these "pillars" and according-to-Payne Fascism.

a cursory search on Payne's def'n turns up "a program for national rebirth based on a primarily vitalist philosophy, extreme elitism, mass mobilization, the promotion of violence, and military virtues."

The last 4 are certainly in keeping with undoing human emancipation from unchosen bonds, but I'm not sure what "vitalist philosophy" might mean.

another cursory search yields "Vitalism, as a philosophical position, is usually tied to the assumption that there is a fundamental difference between the organic and the inorganic, between the physical forces and the “life force”"; anyone know if (a) Payne is referring to that, and (b) if so, what the Foundationalist position may be?

Vitalism is the establishment of a culture that seeks to create a "new man", prizing "courage, daring, and the overcoming of previously established limits". Which is literally one of the pillars (actually, the pillar that me off) of so-called "foundationalism".
5/5 then. Maybe we need an "Atticism", parodying foundationalism in similar ways to Roderick Spode's Saviours of Britain?
You don't see a lot of honest-to-betsy aristocratic reactionaries, but Charles Haywood is definitely one. Makes Yarvin look like a dabbler.