Isn’t this generally true of everything? What ideological symbology doesn’t borrow authority from a predecessor? Which philosophy or ideology doesn’t stand on the shoulders of previous philosophers or cultures?
German Nazi symbology was, perhaps, more blatant about this, but then again, they were specifically appealing to the mass’ sense of heritage and racial pride which - by nature - has to be grounded in cultural symbols. Modern Nazi symbology calls back to German Nazi symbology because they idealize it, and a dog whistle is more effective when there is history behind it.
But, shit, Wiccanism and mysticism steals so heavily from the past it’s hard to claim originality in any of it.
I’m happy to hear counter-examples, though. I’m not dogmatic about this; it’s just that true originality is far, far more rare than borrowing just by the nature of humans and how we learn things.
Its not that others don’t borrow etc. To me, its that the far right just straight up steal everything because its not an ideology of idealism, despite the words they use. Its just an ideology of power and they use any method they can to get it. It doesn’t really stand for anything like, say, worker emancipation or the unity of human, spirit and nature which are the things you would draw from when making your own cultural identities.
You can’t really advertise, with a symbol, your policy being the will to dominate and expect positive results.
In fact, the far right ripped off everything associated with them. They very deliberately don’t set trends but follow them, as this best facilitates their aims. For example, original skinhead culture had nothing to do with the far right and was only meant as a way for working class to distinguish themselves from the hippies, who they saw as upper middle class.
Of course, everyone knows the “steal from one person is plagiarism but steal from many is research” line. My point here is that almost all of the others, to me, would fall under the “research” umbrella whereas the far right would all be under the latter. At least, thats how I see the difference.
They very deliberately don’t set trends but follow them, as this best facilitates their aims.
I have a theory about this.
I think some of it comes from religion, from being conditioned to believe in hierarchy, to believe someone knows better than you and is worth following, even if you don’t understand why. It’s faith. And you have to follow it; if you have proof, it’s no longer faith, it’s fact, and fact is somehow less. All the fascists do is replace religion with a cult of personality, but that desperate need to have someone to follow, someone who knows the answers, is very simian. I don’t know if we’ll ever entirely evolve out of it, even if we avoid extincting ourselves.
Isn’t this generally true of everything? What ideological symbology doesn’t borrow authority from a predecessor? Which philosophy or ideology doesn’t stand on the shoulders of previous philosophers or cultures?
German Nazi symbology was, perhaps, more blatant about this, but then again, they were specifically appealing to the mass’ sense of heritage and racial pride which - by nature - has to be grounded in cultural symbols. Modern Nazi symbology calls back to German Nazi symbology because they idealize it, and a dog whistle is more effective when there is history behind it.
But, shit, Wiccanism and mysticism steals so heavily from the past it’s hard to claim originality in any of it.
I’m happy to hear counter-examples, though. I’m not dogmatic about this; it’s just that true originality is far, far more rare than borrowing just by the nature of humans and how we learn things.
Its not that others don’t borrow etc. To me, its that the far right just straight up steal everything because its not an ideology of idealism, despite the words they use. Its just an ideology of power and they use any method they can to get it. It doesn’t really stand for anything like, say, worker emancipation or the unity of human, spirit and nature which are the things you would draw from when making your own cultural identities.
You can’t really advertise, with a symbol, your policy being the will to dominate and expect positive results.
In fact, the far right ripped off everything associated with them. They very deliberately don’t set trends but follow them, as this best facilitates their aims. For example, original skinhead culture had nothing to do with the far right and was only meant as a way for working class to distinguish themselves from the hippies, who they saw as upper middle class.
Of course, everyone knows the “steal from one person is plagiarism but steal from many is research” line. My point here is that almost all of the others, to me, would fall under the “research” umbrella whereas the far right would all be under the latter. At least, thats how I see the difference.
I have a theory about this.
I think some of it comes from religion, from being conditioned to believe in hierarchy, to believe someone knows better than you and is worth following, even if you don’t understand why. It’s faith. And you have to follow it; if you have proof, it’s no longer faith, it’s fact, and fact is somehow less. All the fascists do is replace religion with a cult of personality, but that desperate need to have someone to follow, someone who knows the answers, is very simian. I don’t know if we’ll ever entirely evolve out of it, even if we avoid extincting ourselves.