Talk:Ultraconservatism

#France and #Germany

@Trakking please insert quotes from these authoratative works on the topic, which have already been cited that identify these movements as ultraconservative. Specifically "ultraconservative", with that terminology. –Vipz (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I will provide a few of the sources later today, when I have access to the literature in question. Trakking (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

There exist probably a thousand sources that support the characterization of these movements as ultraconservative. I will present a few that come to mind.

On the topic of the Bourbon Restauration and the ultra-royalists, Lars Holger Holm writes in Örnen landar (2011, p. 83):

Nu kräver de ultrakonservativa inte bara att få sina konfiskerade gods, egendomar och privata förmögenheter tillbaka, utan dessutom att få bli återinsatta i sina gamla privilegier.

In the work Introducing Fascism (1993) – whose explicit purpose is to "trace the origins of Fascism in 19th-century traditions of ultra-conservatism" – Stuart Hood writes:

Ultraconservatives in France were fiercely patriotic, anti-republican and nostalgic for past glories. An example was Charles Maurras (1868-1952), the Catholic, monarchist and anti-Semite who hated Freemasons, Protestants and foreigners resident in France.

In Modern konservatism (2020, p. 78) – the most extensive and authoritative work on conservatism written in the Swedish language – Jakob E:son Söderbaum writes:

Ett exempel på ultrakonservativa rörelser är de s.k. konservativa revolutionärerna i Tyskland, med tänkare såsom Carl Schmitt, Ernst Jünger och Oswald Spengler.

Trakking (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trakking: thank you, now please amend these sections to say who described each movement as ultraconservative, together with quotes inside |quote= parameter of cite templates. None of these three seem to have an article on Wikipedia (yet) and the results I get searching for them on the web aren't promising to establish them as notable authors. Nonetheless, it's interesting Lars Holger Holm and his work seem to be well received by Metapedia editors given such positive coverage on the author; in fact, this guy seems to be self-aware of making WP:FRINGE statements, given his latest blog post (from 2018): One of the benefits of being an unknown persona non grata, lost in the miasma of political wilderness, is that you can get away with stating practically any kind of so-called conspiracy theory without being severely punished for it. WP:ECREE and WP:RS/AC apply, since you claim There exist probably a thousand sources I expect it shouldn't be difficult to cite at least two for each statement. Reliable sources. –Vipz (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This is easy. A quick search on "ultraconservatism" in the relevant literature generates a plethora of results. Here are two additional sources for each section:

Ultra-royalists

Emma Rothschild in "Condorcet and Adam Smith on education and instruction" (1998, p. 220):

In fact, the ideological claims of these Catholic "ultraroyalists" seeped into public discourse on a regular basis as early as 1818 […] Like their counterparts in Germany or Austria, ultraconservatives were profoundly influenced by Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790).

Manfred B. Steger in The Rise of the Global Imaginary (2008, p. 60):

[…] the ultra-monarchist ‘right’. Mably, like Rousseau, admired the education of Sparta, and was full of regret that the law could only extend to people’s actions, where ’he would have liked it to extend into their thoughts, their most fleeting impressions’. But the ultra-conservatives of the 1810s, too, were admirers of Sparta and ancient Egypt.

Action Française

Koenraad W. Swart in The Sense of Decadence in Nineteenth-Century France (1964, p. 197):

The ultraconservatives of the Action Française felt greatly encouraged by the by the new nationalistic spirit and the increasing discredit of Leftist ideology.

T. E. Hulme in Selected Writings (2003, p. xiv):

The movement's principal tenets were Royalism, political ultra-conservatism, and anti-Romanticism.

Konservative Revolution

Miroslav Mareš in Militant Right-Wing Extremism in Putin’s Russia (2018):

[…] right-wing ultra-conservative thinkers such as Oswald Spengler and Carl Schmitt […]

Benny Carlson in "Blod, järn och stålar" in the reputable magazine Axess (2022:7):

Vad Spengler predikar är en ultrakonservatism som får sitt ”visionära djup” genom ständiga analogier till romarrikets uppgång och fall.

I will incorporate one of these sources into each section. There's no need to make multiple quotations regarding scholarly common knowledge. Stating that the ultra-royalists were, indeed, ultra-conservative is similar to stating that the sky is blue. Trakking (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trakking: These sources seem better. Now, I wouldn't take common knowledge and sky being blue for granted from editors pushing such WP:FRINGE views as Nazism being a "progressive socialist" movement.

Speaking of which, I intended to ask you to address this next: The movement distinguishes it from traditional conservatism by its embrace of modern technology and concepts, including a "revisionist" view of socialism which rejected class conflict analysis, internationalism, and egalitarianism. I challenged both the entire sentence and the WP:SCAREQUOTES and have been requesting quotation that confirms these specific claims from the Woods, Roger (1996) citation. Please insert the quote and narrow down the page number to where these statements are specifically covered. –Vipz (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The national socialists enacted lots of progressive policies—modernization of transportation, establishment of welfare state, protection of environment etc. But this is another discussion. Just remember: Nazism was the French Revolution of Germany and Hitler was Napoleon.

As for the quoted sentence, please read the article on the Conservative Revolution, where all of these elements of the movement are elaborated in detail. Trakking (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trakking - First paragraph: WP:OFFTOPIC for this talk page, go to Talk:Nazism. Second paragraph: implies you copied this sentence and quotation from another article without verifying it? I'm asking for quotation - if you're unable to provide it, it's eligible for removal. –Vipz (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I have verified the statement by reading other works on the topic. I will provide a quotation—either from that source or another. Trakking (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Any progress with this? –Vipz (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, here is the source I had in mind. In Germany: 1789–1933, Heinrich August Winkler writes about the exponents of the Conservative Revolution as follows:

Their opposition to the capitalist and democratic west brought a number of ‘conservative revolutionaries’ into a certain proximity with the communist and dictatorial east. Cooperation between Germany and the Soviet Union, both strongly revisionist powers, had its supporters among communists and nationalists alike.
Even staunchly anti-Marxist intellectuals like Oswald Spengler advocated for a ‘German’ or ‘Prussian socialism’. The great question of the world, as Spengler wrote in his 1920 book Preussentum und Sozialismus, was the choice between the Prussian and the English idea, socialism and capitalism, state and parliament.
Prussiandom and socialism stand together against the inner England, against the world-view that infuses our entire life as a people, crippling it and stealing its soul… The working class must liberate itself from the illusions of Marxism. Marx is dead. As a form of existence, socialism is just beginning, but the socialism of the German proletariat is at an end. For the worker, there is only Prussian socialism or nothing… For conservatives, there is only conscious socialism or destruction. (2000, p. 414)

Trakking (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Either reword the sentence referenced to Roger Woods according to this citation or explain how is the current wording upheld by it. –Vipz (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing more to explain. The sources are crystal clear on this point. The scholarship says the same all over Wikipedia on the topic; this is just one example. Trakking (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If there's nothing more to explain, please feel free to adapt the current wording according to the citation you just provided. That's what I already said in the first part of my previous reply. –Vipz (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Bias within this article

This article, in particuler the section were former president George W Bush is referred to as a "neofacist" is misleading and biased. Anyone who labels George Bush a facist is either ignorant or lacking knowledge, amd I would like a justification as to why this article labels Bush as such, and why every time I correct this section it is reverted. 2A02:C7C:BD4F:8600:9452:E1BF:85B:2017 (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If you are saying that the sources provided in the relevant passage are being incorrectly summarized, that they don't state what is claimed, please detail the specific errors. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Please also be aware that post-1992 American politics and closely related people is a formally designated contentious topic area, which has its own special rules about editing; please see your user talk page for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)