The Telos Press Podcast: Courtney Hodrick on Neoreaction, the Alt-Right, and Carl Schmitt

In today’s episode of the Telos Press Podcast, David Pan talks with Courtney Hodrick about her article “From Neoreaction to Alt-Right: A Schmittian Perspective,” from Telos 198 (Spring 2022). An excerpt of the article appears here. In their conversation they discuss Carl Schmitt’s understanding of the relationship between liberalism and democracy, and how the separation of the two from each other leads to two versions of extreme right thinking; the general outlines of Mencius Moldbug’s rejection of politics in favor of markets and the relationship between this approach and Schmitt’s understanding of politics as based in the friend/enemy distinction; why Moldbug is an example of what Schmitt defines as liberal; how Moldbug’s ideas contrast with those of Richard Spencer and the extent to which Spencer is a Schmittian; and Curtis Yarvin’s recent shift away from his previous rejections of nationalism and whether this shift represents a merging of neoreaction with alt-right populism. If your university has an online subscription to Telos, you can read the full article at the Telos Online website. For non-subscribers, learn how your university can begin a subscription to Telos at our library recommendation page. Print copies of Telos 198 are available for purchase in our online store.

Continue reading →

Telos 198 (Spring 2022): Challenging State Sovereignty: Mutual Aid or Civil War?

Telos 198 (Spring 2022): Challenging State Sovereignty: Mutual Aid or Civil War? is now available for purchase in our store. Individual subscriptions to Telos are also available in both print and online formats.

State sovereignty has a complicated relationship to individual rights. They are clearly in opposition, and both left-wing anarchist and right-wing libertarian critiques of the state have attempted to defend individual freedoms against the power of the state. Yet more traditional liberals and conservatives often see the state as the guarantor of individual rights, the left looking to the state as a provider of welfare services to the disadvantaged, and neoconservatives defending state power as the guarantor of individual rights against foreign aggressors as well as domestic enemies. These four different approaches map out a political landscape that is divided not just into left–right but also into pro- and anti-state tendencies.

In spite of this fragmentation, though, there are two main concerns that are shared. In the first place, there seems to be a general recognition among these different perspectives that the inhabitants of a state are not completely homogeneous and that the internal heterogeneity of a state should be at least in part the basis for domestic order. If libertarians prefer market-based structures and traditional conservatives look to family and religion, liberals seem to have gravitated toward identity-based groupings, and anarchists might prefer mutual aid organizations as independent places of sovereignty within which individuals can define themselves. The disagreements concern the type of heterogeneity that is being called for as well as the precise mechanisms for supporting diverse organizations within the state.

Continue reading →