<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On Lukacs And Buchanan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/23/on-lukacs-and-buchanan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/23/on-lukacs-and-buchanan/</link>
	<description>n. the principle of good order&#60;br /&#62;&#60;br /&#62; "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:45:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eunomia &#187; More On Lukacs</title>
		<link>http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/23/on-lukacs-and-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-11195</link>
		<dc:creator>Eunomia &#187; More On Lukacs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 05:52:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/23/on-lukacs-and-buchanan/#comment-11195</guid>
		<description>[...] My posts this week at Taki&#8217;s Magazine continue the discussion of Lukacs and Buchanan that started with the review from the 6/2 issue.Â  One expands on my earlier critique of the review, and the other addresses Lukacs&#8217; critics. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] My posts this week at Taki&#8217;s Magazine continue the discussion of Lukacs and Buchanan that started with the review from the 6/2 issue.Â  One expands on my earlier critique of the review, and the other addresses Lukacs&#8217; critics. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: conradg</title>
		<link>http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/23/on-lukacs-and-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-11060</link>
		<dc:creator>conradg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 May 2008 13:33:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/23/on-lukacs-and-buchanan/#comment-11060</guid>
		<description>&quot;It remains debatable, however, that German rule over the conquered lands of eastern Europe and Russia would have been more enduring; one nationâ€™s empire could inspire nationalist resistance among its subjects perhaps with even greater ferocity than a communist empire did.&quot;

This ignores a breathrough measure the Nazi had come up with to undermine nationalism and its tendency to undermine empires: extermination not just of nationalist leaders, bu of the entire human population of the subject nations. Hitler&#039;s plan for England, for example, was total extermination of the English peoples. He has similar plans for the Slavs of eastern Europe and Russia. Lebensraum was not a metaphor, or a slow process of taking control of foreign lands through immigration. It was a fully genocidal program of mass murder that would leave no possible nationalist opposition remaining.

Now, it remains true that not all evil needs to be opposed. Much evil self-destructs under its own internal contradictions. But many lethal viruses, like Nazism, do not self-destruct on their own, but only under the pressures of massive defeat. It seems like an awfully risky policy to have counted on Nazism to self-destruct without a massive attack by its enemies, including the US.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It remains debatable, however, that German rule over the conquered lands of eastern Europe and Russia would have been more enduring; one nationâ€™s empire could inspire nationalist resistance among its subjects perhaps with even greater ferocity than a communist empire did.&#8221;</p>
<p>This ignores a breathrough measure the Nazi had come up with to undermine nationalism and its tendency to undermine empires: extermination not just of nationalist leaders, bu of the entire human population of the subject nations. Hitler&#8217;s plan for England, for example, was total extermination of the English peoples. He has similar plans for the Slavs of eastern Europe and Russia. Lebensraum was not a metaphor, or a slow process of taking control of foreign lands through immigration. It was a fully genocidal program of mass murder that would leave no possible nationalist opposition remaining.</p>
<p>Now, it remains true that not all evil needs to be opposed. Much evil self-destructs under its own internal contradictions. But many lethal viruses, like Nazism, do not self-destruct on their own, but only under the pressures of massive defeat. It seems like an awfully risky policy to have counted on Nazism to self-destruct without a massive attack by its enemies, including the US.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eunomia &#187; On Lukacs And Buchanan (II)</title>
		<link>http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/23/on-lukacs-and-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-11040</link>
		<dc:creator>Eunomia &#187; On Lukacs And Buchanan (II)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 May 2008 00:14:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/23/on-lukacs-and-buchanan/#comment-11040</guid>
		<description>[...] AtÂ Taki&#8217;s Magazine,Â Marcus Epstein makes quite a lot, indeed too much,Â out of the publication in the forthcoming TAC of the fairly negative Lukacs review of Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War and explains it in terms of the magazine&#8217;s difference from paleoconservative outlets.Â  That must be why TomÂ wrote a post attacking the review&#8230;on TAC&#8217;sÂ main blog.Â  If that weren&#8217;t enough, the editors have been very cunning in masking this distance from paleoconservatism when they brought EunomiaÂ in to be part ofÂ their website as recently as threeÂ months ago, and I then went and confused things even more by writing a critical post against the review.Â  As ever, I hope my views on Churchill and Lincoln, among other things, remain anything but boring or conventional, but this is hardly the first time thatÂ an argument in support of a more conventional view of American, to say nothing of British, involvement in WWII has appeared in TAC.Â  Prof. Andrew Bacevich wrote an articleÂ (sorry, not online)Â on FDR and WWII back in June 2005 to which I took great exception, but I never supposed that his argument demonstrated anything aboutÂ TAC other than the intellectual diversity of the magazine&#8217;s contributors that has been one of the great qualities of TAC and also something that IÂ believe is fairly typical of paleoconservative outlets.Â Â Certainly, that is something to which we ought to aspire if it isn&#8217;t always the reality.Â Â Both Takimag and TACÂ publish Austin Bramwell, yet heÂ has in the past written things far more critical of paleoconservatives as a group than anything that Prof. LukacsÂ has ever written, and so what if he has?Â Â Healthy criticism and pushback are vital toÂ making our argumentsÂ better and keeping us from drifting into intellectual torpor.Â  The last thing the right needs are additional echo chambers in which we congratulate one another on our purity of belief.Â Â  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] AtÂ Taki&#8217;s Magazine,Â Marcus Epstein makes quite a lot, indeed too much,Â out of the publication in the forthcoming TAC of the fairly negative Lukacs review of Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War and explains it in terms of the magazine&#8217;s difference from paleoconservative outlets.Â  That must be why TomÂ wrote a post attacking the review&#8230;on TAC&#8217;sÂ main blog.Â  If that weren&#8217;t enough, the editors have been very cunning in masking this distance from paleoconservatism when they brought EunomiaÂ in to be part ofÂ their website as recently as threeÂ months ago, and I then went and confused things even more by writing a critical post against the review.Â  As ever, I hope my views on Churchill and Lincoln, among other things, remain anything but boring or conventional, but this is hardly the first time thatÂ an argument in support of a more conventional view of American, to say nothing of British, involvement in WWII has appeared in TAC.Â  Prof. Andrew Bacevich wrote an articleÂ (sorry, not online)Â on FDR and WWII back in June 2005 to which I took great exception, but I never supposed that his argument demonstrated anything aboutÂ TAC other than the intellectual diversity of the magazine&#8217;s contributors that has been one of the great qualities of TAC and also something that IÂ believe is fairly typical of paleoconservative outlets.Â Â Certainly, that is something to which we ought to aspire if it isn&#8217;t always the reality.Â Â Both Takimag and TACÂ publish Austin Bramwell, yet heÂ has in the past written things far more critical of paleoconservatives as a group than anything that Prof. LukacsÂ has ever written, and so what if he has?Â Â Healthy criticism and pushback are vital toÂ making our argumentsÂ better and keeping us from drifting into intellectual torpor.Â  The last thing the right needs are additional echo chambers in which we congratulate one another on our purity of belief.Â Â  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
