Третья волна

[tijd]

Знаменитая американская журналистка Дороти Томпсон в 1930ых работала в Европе и в 1931 успела взять интервью у Гитлера.

"He is formless, almost faceless, a man whose countenance is a caricature, a man whose framework seems cartilaginous, without bones. He is inconsequent and voluble, ill poised and insecure. He is the very prototype of the Little Man."
https://fee.org/articles/meet-the-first-american-journalist-to-interview-hitler-and-the-first-expelled-from-nazi-germany/

В 1934 ее выслали из нацистской Германии. В августе 1941 Томпсон написала знаменитое эссе "Who Goes Nazi?”, в котором предложила салонную игру: рассматривать гостей на званной вечеринке и про себя решать, кто из них в случае смены власти побежит записываться в нацисты. Определить можно было всегда, хотя и не всегда понятно, по каким именно признакам.

"Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi. They may be the gentle philosopher whose name is in the Blue Book, or Bill from City College to whom democracy gave a chance to design airplanes - you’ll never make Nazis out of them. But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success - they would all go Nazi in a crisis. Believe me, nice people don’t go Nazi. Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them. Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’ t -- whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi. It’s an amusing game. Try it at the next big party you go to."
https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/



Как ныне подсказывает журналист Джон Ганц, один из персонажей в этом эссе (Mr. C) напоминает нового кандидата в вице-президенты от республиканской партии.

"Mr. C is a brilliant and embittered intellectual. He was a poor white-trash Southern boy, a scholarship student at two universities where he took all the scholastic honors but was never invited to join a fraternity. His brilliant gifts won for him successively government positions, partnership in a prominent law firm, and eventually a highly paid job as a Wall Street adviser. He has always moved among important people and always been socially on the periphery. His colleagues have admired his brains and exploited them, but they have seldom invited him-or his wife-to dinner.
He is a snob, loathing his own snobbery. He despises the men about him-he despises, for instance, Mr. B-because he knows that what he has had to achieve by relentless work men like B have won by knowing the right people. But his contempt is inextricably mingled with envy. Even more than he hates the class into which he has insecurely risen, does he hate the people from whom he came. He hates his mother and his father for being his parents. He loathes everything that reminds him of his origins and his humiliations. He is bitterly anti-Semitic because the social insecurity of the Jews reminds him of his own psychological insecurity.
Pity he has utterly erased from his nature, and joy he has never known. He has an ambition, bitter and burning. It is to rise to such an eminence that no one can ever again humiliate him. Not to rule but to be the secret ruler, pulling the strings of puppets created by his brains. Already some of them are talking his language-though they have never met him.
There he sits: he talks awkwardly rather than glibly; he is courteous. He commands a distant and cold respect. But he is a very dangerous man. Were he primitive and brutal he would be a criminal-a murderer. But he is subtle and cruel. He would rise high in a Nazi regime. It would need men just like him-intellectual and ruthless. But Mr. C is not a born Nazi. He is the product of a democracy hypocritically preaching social equality and practicing a carelessly brutal snobbery. He is a sensitive, gifted man who has been humiliated into nihilism. He would laugh to see heads roll."



Не вдаваясь в психологию Джей Ди Вэнса, которая привела его к стремительному политическому взлету, важно понимать идеологию, которую он представляет. Это - знакомое Протемнение.

Своей судьбой Вэнс обязан не столько вырастившей его бабушке, у которой в доме после смерти нашли 19 заряженных ружей, сколько встречей в Йеле с миллиардером Питером Тилем, позже обеспечившим его работой и проспонсировавшим избирательную кампанию.

"Peter’s talk remains the most significant moment of my time at Yale Law School. He articulated a feeling that had until then remained unformed: that I was obsessed with achievement in se-not as an end to something meaningful, but to win a social competition. My worry that I had prioritized striving over character took on a heightened significance: striving for what? I didn’t even know why I cared about the things I cared about. I fancied myself educated, enlightened, and especially wise about the ways of the world-at least compared with most of the people from my hometown. Yet I was obsessed with obtaining professional credentials-a clerkship with a federal judge and then an associate position at a prestigious firm-that I didn’t understand. I hated my limited exposure to legal practice. I looked to the future, and realized that I’d been running a desperate race where the first prize was a job I hated.
I began immediately planning for a career outside the law, which is why I spent less than two years after graduation as a practicing attorney. But Peter left me with one more thing: he was possibly the smartest person I’d ever met, but he was also a Christian. He defied the social template I had constructed-that dumb people were Christians and smart ones atheists. I began to wonder where his religious belief came from, which led me to René Girard, the French philosopher whom he apparently studied under at Stanford. Girard’s thought is rich enough that any effort to summarize will fail to do the man justice. His theory of mimetic rivalry-that we tend to compete over the things that other people want-spoke directly to some of the pressures I experienced at Yale. But it was his related theory of the scapegoat-and what it revealed about Christianity-that made me reconsider my faith."
https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/how-i-joined-the-resistance



На фотографии Вэнс причащается после того, как в 35 лет перешел в католичество.

Отрицание соревновательности и конкуренции, которая согласно Рене Жирару приносит одни страдания, логически приводит к отрицанию Просвещения вместе с его артефактами в виде рыночной экономики и либеральной демократии.

Главные скрепы Протемнения кратко сформулировал Майкл Аниссимов:

1. People are not equal. They never will be. We reject equality in all its forms.
2. Right is right and left is wrong.
3. Hierarchy is basically a good idea.
4. Traditional sex roles are basically a good idea.
5. Libertarianism is retarded.
6. Democracy is irredeemably flawed and we need to do away with it.
https://archive.is/2014.07.12-170039/http://www.moreright.net/principles-of-reactionary-thought/

Первый пункт перекликается с другими и прямо отрицает американскую Декларацию независимости. Когда Вэнс говорит "America is not an idea", одновременно перечеркивая Джо Байдена и Джона Маккейна, именно это имеется в виду. Когда он говорит "People will not fight for abstractions", это перечеркивает судьбу Тадеуша Костюшко и других героев, отстоявших независимость



Мы еще вернемся к обсуждению других пунктов, а пока окунемся в историю. Длинная траектория истории показывает, что нынешний радикальный разворот республиканской партии - результат третьей послевоенной волны. Первая волна накатила в 1960ых и расколола партию.

В июне 1963 президент Кеннеди произнес две самые важные речи своего президентства - одну в Белом доме, другую у Берлинской стены. Написанные Тедом Соренсоном, две речи объеденены посланием в духе Костюшко " За вашу и нашу свободу" в отношении жертв сегрерации в Америке и восточных немцев: "Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free." "And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free."

Пока Мартин Лютер Кинг приветствовал новую речь, как "one of the most eloquent, profound, and unequivocal pleas for justice and freedom", одновременно ей радовались сторонники Барри Голдуотера, предполагаемого республиканского кандидата в президенты. Выступая в защиту гражданских прав, Кеннеди терял поддержку белого населения в южных штатах, а значит, эти штаты можно было выиграть на выборах 1964 в дополнение к тем, которые Никсон выиграл в 1960.



За месяц до ныне знаменитого Марша на Вашингтон с участие Кинга, общественная комиссия Draft Goldwater огранизовала свой собственный крупный митинг в Вашингтоне 4 июля 1963.

The first public event was a July 4 rally at the District of Columbia Armory. Dozens of busloads (including 43 from New York State alone) helped deliver a crowd of 7,000 for the event (Goldwater himself did not attend).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_Goldwater_Committee

На республиканских праймериз главным противником Голдуотера, сенатора из Аризоны, выступал Нельсон Рокфеллер, губернатор Нью-Йорка и лидер умеренных республиканцев.

Click to view

Решающая битва разыгралась в Калифорнии. Голдуотер проигрывал по опросам, но во время голосования неожиданно вырвался вперед и опередил Рокфеллера на 3%. Ему помогли два обстоятельства. Во-первых, у Рокфеллера в это время родился сын, что заставило обратить внимание на скандальное обстоятельство, что он женат вторым браком. Во-вторых, в борьбу вступили берчеры (члены John Birch Society).

За два года до этого берчеры подорвали кандидатуру Ричарда Никсона на выборах губернатора Калифорнии. Никсон отказался их поддержать и говорил, что не сможет смотреть на самого себя в зеркало, если это сделает.

And the issue was the John Birch Society. The John Birch Society was a very right wing society which the head of it, Robert Welch, had said that Eisenhower was some sort of communist.
And Nixon was terribly upset by this and said that, of course, he was against the John Birch Society but also he was against any Republican candidate who accepted the support of the John Birch Society, which included some friends of his, good friends of his, who were members of the House of Representatives who came from very republican districts, who Nixon turned against in that way and he lost some votes. It was clear that he was going to get the nomination for the Republican nominee…to be the Republican candidate, but Schell would get a third of the vote. Now, to lose a third of your own vote is a big deal. So he started with that behind him. And I can remember once that he was in his office downtown Los Angeles, during that primary period, we were going out to dinner. He was shaving in a private bathroom that was connected to his office. The door was open and he was looking at the mirror and he said to me, “I could not look in my face if I didn’t oppose them.”
And at first I thought, gee, is he just saying something for my purposes? And then I said, no, that can’t be, there’s no reason to win me over. He’s saying something to himself. And I think he felt so deeply about the attack on Eisenhower that he took this position. In fact, Ronald Reagan when he ran for governor in 1966 also opposed the John Birch Society. But he was a much better politician than Richard Nixon and he let every Republican candidate do what they wanted to do and didn’t lose anybody else in that regard. So that was all part of why Richard Nixon lost the governorship.
https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2018/12/transcript-stephen-hess-working-nixon-eisenhower/



К берчерам принадлежала Филлис Шлафли, которая за свой счет публикует книжку "A choice not an echo", сыгравшую роль в успехе кампании Голдуотера. Книжка нападает на предполагаемый тайный заговор "New York kingmakers", которые кулуарно выбирают кандидатов вместо того, чтобы прислушаться к избирателям.

Недовольство было обоснованным - Эйзенхауэр, которого глава берчеров считал тайным коммунистическим агентом, был выбран в 1952 закулисно вместо изоляциониста Тафта. Тот же ненавистный берчерами республиканский истеблишмент расправился с сенатором Маккарти, прямым предшественником движения.

Click to view

На республиканском съезде в Сан Франциско в июле 1964 Рокфеллеру дали 5 минут для выступления. Он использовал их, чтобы агитировать за включение в платформу партии осуждение экстремизма, и рассказал о травле, которой подвергся со стороны берчеров. Выступление было освистано, а предложение проигнорировано.

Ранее был также освистан Марк Хэтфилд, 40-летний губернатор Орегона, которого умеренные республиканские губернаторы выдвинули для заглавной речи съезде. В этой речи, которая в нынешней трампистской партии выглядела бы неуместной, Хэтфилд использовал рефрен "We have faith".

"We have faith in the value of our open society, where people of many lands-minorities all - have migrated to these shores, each has added richly to the cultural diversities that makes this the unique nation in all the world.
We have faith as the historic party of human rights that for those minorities which do not now have equal opportunity for education, for employment, for housing, that we can find the means of assuring to each of these the requirement of progress.
We have faith in our capacity to defend human rights against the forces of bigotry and hate within our own country. <...>
Our faith challenges any who would destroy freedom whether they wrap themselves in a false cloak of patriotism or an equally false cloak of religion.
There are bigots in this nation who spew forth their venom of hate. They parade under hundreds of labels, including the Communist party, the Ku Klux Klan and the John Birch Society. They must be overcome."
https://www.nytimes.com/1964/07/14/archives/transcript-of-the-keynote-address-by-gov-hatfield-at-gop-convention.html

Получив номинацию, Голдуотер прямо ответил Рокфеллеру в речи, написанной Гарри Яффой:  "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" Фраза вызвала долгую овацию.



Вместо республиканской платформы пункт об осуждении экстремизма попал в демократическую платформу.

"Of first priority is our renewed commitments to the values and ideals of democracy.
We are firmly pledged to continue the Nation's march towards the goals of equal opportunity and equal treatment for all Americans regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.
We cannot tolerate violence anywhere in our land-north, south, east or west. Resort to lawlessness is anarchy and must be opposed by the Government and all thoughtful citizens.
We must expose, wherever it exists, the advocacy of hatred which creates the clear and present danger of violence.
We condemn extremism, whether from the Right or Left, including the extreme tactics of such organizations as the Communist Party, the Ku Klux Klan and the John Birch Society."
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1964-democratic-party-platform

Выборы 1964 были сложными, но закончились для Линдона Джонсона самой крупной победой (по проценту набранных голосов) за последние 200 лет. За четыре последиющие года Джонсон сумел провести коренные реформы в области гражданских прав, включая иммиграционную реформу.

Таким образом стратегия борьбы с ультраправой пропагандой себя оправдала. В 1965 ведущие представители консервативного движения (Голдуотер, Бакли, Рейган) всллед за республиканскими лидерами в Конгрессе публично дистанцировались от John Birch Society.



На этой неделе из-за покушения на Трампа Джо Байден отменил поездку в LBJ Library на годовщину подписания Акта о гражданских правах. Выступая до этого на пресс-конференции, он прямо сравнивал себя с Джонсоном и указывал на то, как многолетний опыт работы в Сенате помогает с принятием законов.

THE PRESIDENT: Most presidential historians give me credit for having accomplished more than most any president since Johnson and maybe before that to get major pieces of legislation passed.
And what I realized was, my long time in the Senate had equipped me to have the wisdom to know how to deal with the Congress to get things done. We got more major legislation passed that no one thought would happen.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/07/11/remarks-by-president-biden-in-press-conference-9/

Пьеса и телефильм "All the way" заканчиваются победой Джонсона на выборах. Однако вслед за радостью победы новоизбранного президента немедленно охватывает паранойя: "...right now we’re gonna party like there’s no tomorrow ’cause there’s no feeling in the world half as good as winning! But the sun will come up and the knives will come out and all these smiling faces will be watchin’ me, watchin’ me, waitin’ for that one, first moment of weakness, and then they will gut me like a deer..."



К чему сводится наследие берчеров? Радикальное движение требует трех ингредиентов:

1. Комплекс беспомощности и неполноценности.
2. Враг - настолько могущественный и коварный, что с ним нельзя бороться обычными методами.
3. Массовая пропаганда, которая помогает объединить движение на основе ненависти к врагу.

Комплекс в данном случае возник в отношении администрации Эйзенхауера и республиканского истеблишнента. Врагом выступал коммунизм. Страшный коммунизм шагал по мире, захватывая разные страны. Поскольку коммунисты чудились берчерам под каждой кроватью, любое движение влево можно было приписать коммунистическому заговору. Как говорил Кеннеди, "They equate the Democratic Party with the welfare state, the welfare state with socialism, and socialism with communism." Массовая пропаганда использовала радио и прямые почтовые расылки.



Основавший общество в 60 лет Роберт Уэлч был до этого вундеркиндом и успешным бизнесменом и не был похож ни на идиота, ни на шарлатана, пытающегося заработать на легковерных лохах. Он был скорее фанатиком из категории "high IQ morons".

В 1963 для пресечения слухов об антисемитизме в теориях заговора берчеров, Уэлч разослал своей пастве специальное послание - трактат под названием "The Neutralizers". В нем он решительно отверг обвинения, используя убойные аргументы:

Во-первых, Ленин сам сочинил "Протоколы сионских мудрецов".

"Actually, there is a strong indication and considerable logic that Lenin himself forged the so-called Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion and planted them in the anti-Communist ranks to serve many long-range purposes."

Во-вторых, если составить список самых высокопоставленных людей, которых Уэлч обвинял в тайной работе на коммунистов, выяснится, что евреев среди них нет.

"But if so happens that not one of the five or six most important figures I have labeled as Communist was - or had been - a Jew. What is more, if you will list in your own mind the men whom you consider as the six leading rivals for the top spot as Commissar in what is now the United States, if and when it becomes officially a Communist dominion, the chances are strong that there is not a Jew among them."

Уэлч подчеркивал, что враг берчеров - коммунисты и никто больше.

"And so we are, as we always have been, fighting the Communists - and nobody else. We believe that the only chance of stopping, routing, and destroying the Communist conspiracy lies in keeping our eye on the ball. And that ball is certainly not the Jews as Jews."
https://archive.org/details/the-neutralizers-by-robert-welch

Это не остановило Anti-Defamation League, которая, зная к чему приводят дикие теории заговора, проводила контрразведывательную операцию против берчеров, чтобы вывести их на свет и подвергнуть общественному остракизму.



Как бы подтверждая опасения ADL, антисемитизм в сплаве с "сионскими мудрецами" вынырнул в книжке "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" (1971)  берчера Гэри Аллена с предисловием берчера Джона Шмитца.

Когда техасский школьник Алекс Джонс нашел эту книжку в библиотеке своего папы, она произвела на него неизгладимое впечатление.

Mr. Jones owes some of his core conspiracy themes to Gary Allen, a speechwriter for the former Alabama governor George Wallace who in the 1960s and 1970s was one of the far-right John Birch Society’s most revered writers and thinkers. As a teenager, Mr. Jones found Mr. Allen’s 1971 “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” on his father’s bookshelf, and came to share Mr. Allen’s view that a cabal of global bankers and power brokers, not elected officials, controlled American policy. Mr. Allen, who died in 1986, sold his theories by mail order in books, filmstrips and cassettes, a marketing model later adopted by Infowars.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/07/us/politics/alex-jones-jan-6-trump.html

Таким образом длинная тень берчеров тянется до ступеней Капитолия 6 января 2021.



Но непосредственную эстафету приняла вторая волна радикального ультра-правого движения, так называемые "New Right" из 1970ых. Лицом движения стал сенатор Джесси Хелмс из Северной Каролины.

У берчеров "новые правые" позаимствовали технологию прямых почтовых рассылок. Такие рассылки позволяли передавать информацию в обход традиционных СМИ, а также по копеечке собирать пожертвования. Компьютеризированные списки подписчиков накапливали данные о сторонниках, полезные для избирательных кампаний.

Если берчеры восставали против Эйзенхауера и сплотились в 1958, новоправые восстали против Форда и сплотились в 1974. Когда Форд назначил Нельсона Рокфеллера вице-президентом, это вызвало особое отторжение и способствовало эстафете из 1960ых. В 1976 новоправые сделали ставку на Рейгана и в 1980 оказались одним из ключевых элементов коалиции, победившей на выборах.

Если для берчеров врагом был коммунизм, ныне обозначение главного врага несколько поменялось. Ключевое словосочетание - "secular humanism". Могущественное и коварное безбожие проникало во все сферы общественной жизни, наглядным символом чего стал Roe v Wade, решение Верховного суда по вопросу абортов. Борьба с Верховным судом также перешла по эстафете от берчеров.



“We must not make a God of Government. Liberalism is moving into the churches, and that has invited the tidal wave of secular humanism engulfing this country and the world … Now, I am not holier than thou. I am not in a position to judge. But I gotta level with you: we become part of what we condone.”
In the mid-1970s, fundamentalist Christians began using “secular humanism” as a term of opprobrium for nonreligious education. It has grown into a New Rightist code word for the precepts and practices of almost anyone this side of Communism who disagrees with them, including liberals, feminists, atheists, civil libertarians, internationalists.
https://time.com/archive/6858724/to-the-right-march-jesse-helms/

Senator Helms has two impressive sources of power. First, he holds a position of deepest respect in the conservative evangelical and political movement. "Basically," he says, "we're talking about faith in God versus secular humanism." Secondly, he has had enormous success in raising money through the direct-mail techniques polished in conservative causes. His instinct for folksy but high-powered public relations, honed through 12 years of Deep South radio and TV editorializing as "the Voice of Free Enterprise" and a diehard critic of the civil rights movement, gave him priceless entree to small-dollar contributors. As the champion of the tobacco industry, he is not without big lobby money, either.
In 1978, his organization ran the richest re-election drive in Senate history, spending more than $7 million against weak opposition. Last year, the outfit raised more than $4 million for President Reagan and, applying the technique that fellow senators denounce as unsporting and mean, Senator Helms turned his funding machine on several Congressional and Senate incumbents seeking reelection as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/28/weekinreview/helms-takes-aim-at-secular-humanism.html

Объедение христиан разных деноминаций в виде политической силы на базе ненависти к "секулярному гуманизму", символизируемому вопросом абортов - главное достижение новых правых. Наследием этого служат такие ныне актуальнуе организации, как Heritage Foundation. Council for National Policy объединяет как христианскую повестку, так и унаследованную берчеров конспирологию.



Термин "secular humanism" в связке с темой абортов - вклад бесноватого пастора по имени Фрэнсис Шеффер, которую большую часть жизни провел в Швейцарии.

Weyrich, Falwell and leaders of the emerging religious right enlisted an unlikely ally in their quest to advance abortion as a political issue: Francis A. Schaeffer-a goateed, knickers-wearing theologian who was warning about the eclipse of Christian values and the advance of something he called “secular humanism.” Schaeffer, considered by many the intellectual godfather of the religious right, was not known for his political activism, but by the late 1970s he decided that legalized abortion would lead inevitably to infanticide and euthanasia, and he was eager to sound the alarm. Schaeffer teamed with a pediatric surgeon, C. Everett Koop, to produce a series of films entitled Whatever Happened to the Human Race? In the early months of 1979, Schaeffer and Koop, targeting an evangelical audience, toured the country with these films, which depicted the scourge of abortion in graphic terms-most memorably with a scene of plastic baby dolls strewn along the shores of the Dead Sea. Schaeffer and Koop argued that any society that countenanced abortion was captive to “secular humanism” and therefore caught in a vortex of moral decay.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/

Предлагая псевдоисторическое объяснение, Шеффер указывал, что зло гуманизма возникло в эпоху Возрождения и противопоставлял ему религиозную строгость Реформации.

In the book and an accompanying film series that was viewed widely among evangelicals at the time, Schaeffer set up a conflict between the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation. He claimed that the modern history of Western civilization was dominated by a struggle between the secular humanist impulses of the Renaissance and the purifying religious impulses of the Reformation. In Schaeffer’s mind, the Renaissance of Italy and southern Europe had been a ruinous influence on the West, while the Reformation of Germany and northern Europe had provided the foundation for all that was good in Western civilization.
In the film series based on “How Should We Then Live?” Schaeffer argued for the West to return to the stringent religious tenets of the Reformation in order to avoid the decay and ruin of secular humanism. He believed that the West fell short whenever it was not guided by the Reformation’s focus on the Bible. This was an argument that could easily be used in favor of the creation of a Christian theocracy in the United States.
“The Renaissance could have gone in a good direction or a poor one,” he said in the film series. “Freedom was introduced both in [northern Europe] by the Reformation and in [southern Europe] by the Renaissance. But in the south, it brought forth license. The reason was that the humanism of the Renaissance … which began with man being central, eventually has no meaning for man. But in the north, the men of the Reformation, standing under the scripture, regained direction, and the totality of life as well as nature became a thing of beauty and dignity. Man was given a reason for being great. And he was given a reason for freedom.”
It may seem strange today to think that a book and a film series based on these pseudo-intellectual ideas could attract much attention, yet Schaeffer triggered a revolution among evangelicals. His strange junk history, setting up a supposed conflict between the secular humanism of the Renaissance and the religious purity of the Reformation, appealed to evangelicals who were looking for a historical framework in which to understand politics and current events.
His attacks on secular humanism resonated with anxiety-ridden suburbanites who were just starting to embrace fundamentalism. Before long, “secular humanism” became the catchphrase widely used by evangelicals to describe the evils of liberalism in modern American politics.
https://theintercept.com/2022/05/12/abortion-roe-v-wade-francis-schaeffer-evangelical-christians/



Most grass-roots movements flourish best when they have a readily identifiable focus. It may be a charismatic leader like Martin Luther King, a dramatic goal like recapturing the Holy Land from Muslim control, or a common enemy like communism, to which all manner of evil and imperfection can be traced. The New Right enjoyed all these advantages. Robison and Falwell had charisma to spare, America desperately needed to be rescued from sin and mismanagement, and somebody somewhere had uncovered the ideological taproot of most of Western civilization’s troubles: secular humanism.
According to Robison and those who speak at events he sponsors, secular humanism rejects the authority of Scripture and promotes the delusion that man can solve his problems without reference to or assistance from God. Though it ostensibly champions the dignity of man, it denies he has a soul or is capable of salvation, and it leads inexorably to his degradation and a level of existence barely superior to that of animals. Its “creed book,” The Humanist Manifesto, favors freedom of sexual choice, equality between men and women, abortion on demand, suicide, euthanasia, and one-world government. It is ultimately responsible for crime, disarmament, declining SAT scores, “values clarification,” and the new math. And it seeks to limit free enterprise, distribute wealth to achieve greater equality, and place controls on the uses of energy and the environment. What is the origin of such consummate evil? “It is spawned by demonism and liberalism,” Robison says, “and that’s a fact!”
James Robison’s most notable contribution to the public image of the New Right was the National Affairs Briefing (NAB), held in Dallas’s Reunion Arena last August 21 and 22. Though the NAB was billed as a nonpartisan affair to which all three presidential candidates were invited, only Ronald Reagan showed up, and it was clear he owned the elephant’s share of the 15,000 potential votes in the arena. He assured the cheering faithful that he turned to Scripture regularly for “fulfillment and guidance” and that “it is an incontrovertible fact that all the complex and horrendous questions confronting us at home and worldwide have their answer in that single book.” And he won their hearts when he remarked, “I know you cannot endorse me, but I endorse you.”
https://www.texasmonthly.com/being-texan/gods-angry-man/



В 1979 упомянутый техасский евангелический пастор Джеймс Робисон стал автором термина "the moral majority", воплотившимся в мощную организацию. В 1980 христианские лидеры смыкали ряды, чтобы внести Рейгана в Белый дом.

And in the late 1970s, as I demonstrate in my book Reaganland, when formerly segregationist preachers built the “Christian right” as a crucial component of Ronald Reagan’s successful electoral coalition, they relied upon conspiracy theories concerning homosexuals: that, because gays “couldn’t reproduce,” they had to recruit children. One televangelist, James Robison, went further: They were doing so in order to murder them. When Robison’s Fort Worth affiliate took him off the air for making the claim, his supporters filled a basketball arena to protest.
As Robison’s publicist, a man named Mike Huckabee, later said, “If someone had gotten to that microphone and said, ‘Let’s go four blocks from here and take Channel 8 apart,’ that audience would have taken the last brick off the building.”
It turned out no such violence was necessary. In 1980, the political wing of reactionary minoritarianism prevailed, both in gaining the presidency and keeping control of the Republican Party.
https://newrepublic.com/article/160975/trump-era-always-going-end-violence

В августе 1980 Рейган вежливо сидел в первом ряду, чтобы выслушать выступление Робисона на National Affairs Briefing. Выступая вслед за ним, он объяснил 15-тысячной аудитории, что голосование на выборах - не только их право, но и долг, и верно выдержал тон Моисея.

"When the Israelites were about to enter the Promised Land, they were told that their government and laws must be models to other nations, showing to the world the wisdom and mercy of their God. To us, as to the ancient People of The Promise, there is given an opportunity: a chance to make our laws and government not only a model to mankind, but a testament to the wisdom and mercy of God. Let it be said of us -- Let it be said of us, surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people."
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganreligiousliberty.htm

Через два месяца с небольшим он легко выиграл Техас вместе с большинством других штатов.



Представителей нынешней волны реакции тоже называют "The New Right". Они примыкают к интернационалу нацконов.

In certain conservative circles, Vance has emerged as the standard-bearer of the “New Right,” a loose movement of young, edgy and elite conservatives trying to take the ideological revolution that began under Trump - including his overt embrace of nationalism, his hard-line stance on immigration, his vocal opposition of U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts like Ukraine and his overt skepticism toward certain liberal democratic principles - in an even more radical direction. Unlike Trump’s more conventional Republican followers, Vance’s New Right cohort see Trump as merely the first step in a broader populist-nationalist revolution that is already reshaping the American right - and, if they get their way, that will soon reshape America as a whole. <...>
“I feel like I’ve got a really good sense of senators, and he’s by far the smartest and the deepest of any I’ve ever met,” said Tucker Carlson, who backed Vance’s 2022 Senate bid and remains a close political ally.
“He is absolutely going to be one of the leaders - if not the leader - of our movement,” said Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, the leading conservative think tank in Washington.
“I’m sure he’ll run for the presidency one day,” said Steve Bannon, another Vance ally. <...>
In recent years, Peter Thiel, whose venture capital firm Vance worked for before running for Senate, has become the chief financier of the New Right ecosystem. And Thiel’s idiosyncratic brand of techno-libertarianism - which combines an abiding skepticism of liberal democracy with a belief in national restoration through utopian modes of technological innovation - has become a touchstone of intellectual discussions on the New Right. <...>
After a year in Washington, Vance is convinced that if conservatives like himself are going to complete the takeover of the Republican Party they began under Trump, they need to do what the Koch family and other big-name libertarian donors have done for the past half-century: Build a sprawling system of think tanks, donor networks, educational institutions, professional programs and media outlets to support their ideological allies on Capitol Hill. And to do that, they need deep-pocketed allies like Thiel. <...>
In Washington, he has been a major supporter of Kevin Roberts’s efforts to transform the Heritage Foundation from a bastion of Reagan-era conservatism into the de facto institutional home of Trumpism, and he is a frequent guest at events hosted by the Claremont Institute, a chief academic hub of the Trumpist right.
“He’s at the nerve center of this movement,” said Bannon, who frequently hosts Vance on his talk show, War Room, which remains influential in New Right circles.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/15/mr-maga-goes-to-washington-00147054



В чем разница? Первая волна (берчеры) смогла найти кандидата в президенты (Голдуотера), который не привлек их, но и не оттолкнул, и вызвала раскол в партии. Ассоциация с ними способствовала провалу его кампании. Вторая волна (New Right 1970ых) нашла кандидата в президенты (Рейгана), который их активно привлек, и способствовала его успеху. Одна, однако, оставалась меньшей частью правящей коалиции. Третья волна пробралась к руководству партии вроде паразита, захватывающего организм через мозг. Что будет с ней дальше, мы пока не знаем.

Цель, сформулированная в 1961 ("to contain the radical right from further expansion and in the long run to reduce it to its historic role of the impotent lunatic fringe") остается в силе, но путь к ее достижению несколько осложнился.

Первая волна параноидально боролась с коммунизмом, вторая сo "светским гуманизмом", третья называет своего врага "wokism", он же " биоленинизм", предполагаемый заговор перевернуть традиционные биологические иерархии. Есть вторая волна отрицала Возрождение (попытку гуманизма поставить человека выше бога) и восхваляла Реформацию, третья заглядывается на средние века до Возрождения в поиске посконных скреп, когда правильная иерархия была на месте. Отсюда заигрывания с католичеством и православием.

pic.twitter.com/mkF7DIN43q
- J.D. Vance (@JDVance1) February 3, 2023

Первая волна носила либертарианский характер и противопоставляла свободу предпринимательства коммунистической системе и государственному вмешательству. Вторая волна тоже бунтовала против государства, но одновременно жаждала государственного вмешательства для запрета абортов или, например, внедрению молитвы в школе. В этом было некоторое противоречие. Третье волна видит проблему не только в государстве, но и во всей общественной системе, которая включает частные компании и некомерческие огранизации вроде благотворительных фондов и частных университетов. Цель таким образом - пробиться к власти и использовать государство, как орудие, чтобы эту систему развалить.

Более заманчивая цель для этих деятелей и их спонсоров, включая Путина - развалить заодно весь мировой порядок. Это - не преувеличение или, как говорит Джо Байден, "not a hyperbole".

Although the Senate eventually passed a $60 billion stand-alone aid package - disregarding Vance’s last-ditch effort to persuade Republicans that the bill contains a covert mechanism for Democrats to impeach Trump if he reenters the White House next year - the bill has stalled in the Republican-led House. And with further aid stuck in legislative limbo, Vance has called on Ukraine to cede some territory to Russia as part of a deal to end the war.
“I think he deserves quite a bit [of credit],” for shifting conservative opinion on Ukraine, Tucker Carlson told me a few weeks before he traveled to Russia to interview Vladimir Putin. “There’s only one measure of political power - voters - and what he’s doing is demonstrating the capacity of that issue to move voters.”
Vance’s critics sometimes chalk up his stance on Ukraine to rank isolationism or latent Russophilia. But even if Vance does harbor some secret affinity for Putin, those accusations overlook the real radicalness of his position.
As Vance explained to me during one of our conversations, he is deeply skeptical of the so-called “rules-based international order” - the system of laws, norms and multilateral institutions established in the years following the Second World War. <...>
What Vance wants to see happen - and believes he can play a role in precipitating - is a fundamental shift away from the rules-based international order and toward a system where individual nations are responsible for their own security and economic well-being. Vance admitted that getting to this point would require a “really drastic change” in the way the U.S. economy functions, beginning with erasing America’s trade deficits, severely curtailing immigration and possibly even abandoning the dollar as the global reserve currency.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/15/mr-maga-goes-to-washington-00147054