The Sunic Journal: Interview with F. Roger Devlin

February 16, 2010

Pen and Sword

Tom interviews accomplished writer and thinker F. Roger Devlin, a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for The Occidental Quarterly. Topics include:

  • The philosophy of Alexander Kojeve
  • Leftist tropes like “History is Over” and “The End of History”
  • Traditional gender roles as fundamental obstacles to the Leftism; feminism
  • Solzhenitsyn’s last and most powerful book, Two Hundred Years Together

About F. Roger Devlin

To learn more about F. Roger Devlin and his unique perspective read his insightful essays at The Occidental Quarterly, TOQonline and VDARE. His important book Alexandre Kojeve and the Outcome of Modern Thought can be found here on Amazon.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Tom:


6 Responses to “The Sunic Journal: Interview with F. Roger Devlin”

  1. Skeeter on February 17th, 2010 3:02 am

    Does Dr. Devlin claim that both the Right and the Left believe that history has ended?

    I think what we have today are Right-Fukuyamists (Neocons), who believe in global capitalism and democratism and Left-Fukuyamists (Everybody to the Left of the Neocons), who want the same but with a more “human face” (i.e. more tolerance, more social justice, etc.).

  2. F. Roger Devlin on February 17th, 2010 2:01 pm

    As “Skeeter” seems to suggest, the convergence of right and left social democratic parties into a permanent ruling coalition for the contemporary West is highly compatible with the notion of an “End of History.” But anything from Stalinism to Fukuyama’s neo-conservatism might be put forward as the “ideology” of such a process.
    In my view, this nearly unlimited adaptability of the End of History constitutes a weakness—the notion is too lacking in specificity. But I do not claim that many activists of either right or left actually believe in any End of History, for the simple reason that few of them have even wrestled with the philosophical problematic of natural law vs. historicism.

  3. anon on February 18th, 2010 9:48 am

    Did Sunic choose that music? Why not classical?

  4. Spectator on February 18th, 2010 6:57 pm

    More than ever I want to read Dr Devlin’s book, as I have long pursued an interest in Hegel and Kojeve.

    Dr Devlin, I wonder if you are familiar with the late Eric Voegelin’s critique of modernism as inherently “gnostic”? His perspective seems in some important ways to parallel yours, but the “Voegelin school” that has sprung up to honor his work lacks his courage.

    I hope to hear more from you.

  5. Au on February 18th, 2010 9:11 pm

    I think the basic idea of the End Of History as popularly promulgated is that it’s based on Capitalism, Democracy, Liberalism, International Law, Free Trade/Free Market. This is quite a large catchment area, no doubt, but I do think that the world is adopting these norms gradually and consistently, and there is little in the way of competing models.

    In this sense, the End Of History thesis is consistent.

    People say that the End Of History was disproven by 9/11 (neo-con Jews, for example, say this); but it’s not as simple as this. The thesis must be viewed in the long term.

    In the long-term, it’s holding steady.

    F. Roger, I particularly enjoyed the segment of the interview about feminism and sex relations.

    Your insight that moderate feminism is and was a myth is actually quite a rare insight. It is often put forward (by the false mainstream right [conservatives, Republicans, etc.]) that early feminism was a kind of idyllic garden of Eden, concerned only with doing good, until it was corrupted by those nasties in the mid-20th Century. What nonsense!

    Neo-con Jews also promote this idea, and we needn’t wonder for too long, why: because the “modern” feminist movement allies itself with the modern left, which is critical of Israel. Jews did an about turn on feminism (sort of) for the same reason they did an about turn on the New Left and Communism: support for Israel wasn’t flowing from these institutions as much as they would like.

    The Alternative/New Right, also, endorses this idea of “idyllic innocent early feminism” to a large extent. Some supposed opponents of feminism – Paglia, Sommers, et al – also endorse this view.

    The “hijacked” lie is very commonly accepted. It’s kind of feminism’s version of “controlled opposition”.

    Here are some excerpts from the Seneca Falls Convention (1848) you refered to:

    - He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.

    - Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

    - He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.

    - He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women – the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a man, and giving all power into his hands.

    - He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.

    - He allows her in church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

    - He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.

    - He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

    How is this different from the words of mid-20th Century “radical” feminist, Marilyn French (1977)?

    All men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, their codes.

    Well it’s not different at all. Feminism’s form may change from time to time, but its spirit always remains the same (blame men always, define men as the enemy, women first).

    [See: chameleon.]

    The above is of course but one example of “classical, innocent, pre-corruption” feminism.

    You are right in saying that the White race’s appetite for feminism, primordially, is a liability; as this can and is being pushed to the nth degree. The same goes for the essentially fraudulent idea of democracy, another penchant of the White race which paves the way for great corruption.

    Indeed the White race’s preference for feminism shouldn’t be used as an argument to not oppose feminism (as it often is), for this movement only has one end, which is a devasting one for the race.

    You have a good insight into the topic of feminism, F. Roger, and I’d be interested in hearing your views on it in more detail in another interview perhaps.

  6. F. Roger Devlin on February 21st, 2010 10:52 pm

    To “Spectator:” of Voegelin, I know only The New Science of Politics. It is a fine work.

    To “Au:” you seem to be speaking of Fukuyama’s version of the End of History. Kojeve considered himself a socialist (sometimes he called himself a “Marxist of the Right”) and was not a believer in free trade.
    Your comments on early feminism are well-taken.