Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Misha Thomas's avatar

Dear Adaam,

First of all, how delicious and fun it is to send this on July 8th, which apparently back in 1951 the French celebrated the 2,000th anniversary of the great city! And really she is even older than that! WHAT!?!

So, in the spirit of that anniversary, whilst also dining at The Left Bank here in Saranac Lake, New York, here’s my reply:

The contrast that you make between the American and French Revolutions is so exquisite, poignant, so relevant, so powerful!— that I wish you had not buried it under the distracting barrage of provocative name-calling against your select pet list of mostly annoying Lefties and an extremist reference to MAGA worship. The violence-tempering vision of the American revolution is the genius of your argument. You did not need the nihilism discussion at all for this.

It seems that the purpose of your nihilism frame was to give attribution to the sheer madness of violence. But violence (like a temper tantrum too!) by definition is not rational. It is precisely not the stuff of civics, philosophy, and logic. It is emotional, irrational, destructive. The time for logic is after the tantrum. Not during. During, we must wait. Or de-escalate it.

Why wouldn’t you instead actually give voice and summary to the actual positions, statements, cries of the groups you questioned and critiqued?

Even in your reference to Coleman Hughes who wrote The End of Race Politics you claim that the nihilists or (annihilists) can’t hear his clear logical evidence because they want purification or total destruction or salvation. But what does that actually mean? What is the analysis or theory of mind of his opponents to racial color blindness? Same for Aaron Bushnell – you used him as a passing reference to contemplate whether or not annihilism has somehow reached too far and too extreme in political protests, when, in fact, his entire protest was about literal annihilation! He was protesting the thing you are calling him! You do not have to agree with him. I personally certainly do not. But his activism was based on the literal manifestation of violence and annihilation – not the itching kind that you seem to abhor in the American left. This dude didn’t care about the itching, seduction, or ecstasy of destroying. Nor was he a victim of a newfound wave of an old and overly vague and broad philosophical school of thought. He was overcome by the drive to stop the absurdity upon which nihilism as a philosophy begins.

But see? This is why the nihilism motif unnecessarily drew away from the utter genius, wisdom, and insight of the two revolutions. It is too provocative in a context where you can’t just give passing references to stakes that are really that high.

This is not about seduction or ecstasy – it is just the nature of violence, the human nervous system, and the splits between survival, emotions, and cool theorizing.

Again, I just love what you’re doing between the American and French examples. It is remarkable to reflect on your point and to see what the American revolution was in fact able to achieve, what in psychological terms, equates to managing emotional regulation on a political scale so that the masses could gradually hear, absorb, and eventually embrace the hard won outcomes of civic vision, philosophy, and ideals. It is stunning! Inspiring. Here’s to trying to recover that political regulating force amidst so much painful emotional temper tantruming.

Expand full comment

No posts