Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Greg's avatar

I've no idea what planet Mr Jaworsky read this on. I thought it was a fascinating review, very well written and thought provoking, and I am intrigued by the book. Many thanks. I'm very tempted to find it and add it to my amazon wishlist.

I find the central point of the piece challenging: the final position is somewhat attractive (focus on art, philosophy and theology) but also essentially defeatist. I mean that it might have resolved aspects of the novel's Head Forester situation for more citizens to have committed to this lofty solution early on: but equally might it not have resolved the situation more promptly had not more citizens taken the Prince's path of war?

It seems to me that the same problem facing the latter path (the majority are not virtuous and thus incapable of waging just war) is similarly at the root of the impossibility of the former path of widespread art, philosophy and theology. In both instances an original state of widespread virtue may prohibit or proclude the rise of the Forester, but after the decline of virtue leading to the Forester's rise, what then is the path of art, etc, other than a way to absolve the individual conscience? It may be a way to commit to truth, but then so was the Prince's, in fact he gave his head for it.

Lastly, I am intrigued by the idea of there being 'hope in the North'. I'm not convinced this is an option in our time, as there is no outpost of our civilisation not already under attack and suffering already from the malaise. We can hope for no cavalry charge or crusade to save us, and so perhaps this makes the novel's Northern hope irrelevant to us. But even in the context of WWII, it's worth considering that within the Europe-saving actions of the USA, are the roots of the very same sickness that caused the flames of Europe - or perhaps more accurately, made Europe susceptible to the flames - in the first place. The USA of the 40s may have been a culturally healthier place than it is today, but in many respects it was already in cultural decline and the thin end of the wedge was already in the door and being hammered. US cultural norms of the 40's and 50's led fairly straightforwardly to the revolutions of the 60's (and why start at the 40s?)

Perhaps this is exactly why we need to concentrate now on art, philosophy, theology, but haven't we already been doing this? Hasn't our side been doing this since before the 40s? And we're still losing. The nations of the west are corrupt and declining. The darker powers are rising. They are not incapable of virtue, but they are so out of practise that we can have no serious hope of them either defending us culturally or with physical force. In their castles they are more likely to protect the financial marketplaces than to protect the villagers living in the hovels surrounding them. It has ever been thus.

Expand full comment
Stahring's avatar

"In these circles, it was the fashion to disdain the cultivation of grapes and wheat and to see the herdsmen’s wild lands as the source of authentic ancestral customs." This is like 50% of twitter right-wing ideas, and oddly even diet advice now. I have nothing against ancestralism per se, but this section of your review reminded me how much I've come to dislike the vain of thought summarized by that BAP quote about "putting cities to the sword" versus "tasteful banter at the wine bar." Hating culture and meeting fire exclusively with fire will only serve to make us the same as our enemy. A balance must be struck. Great article, thanks for posting.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts