ex cathedra: An anthropological difference?

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

An anthropological difference?

IMHO.

Liberals hate human nature as it is and yet believe it is perfectible (ie, able to be shaped in their own splendid image and likeness) and so want to use government to transform it into their egalitarian utopia.

Conservatives accept human nature as it is, believe it to be inherently flawed and want religion and the family to shape it into the best it can reasonably be expected to be. Government's role is to organize, not to transform.

As Jonah Goldberg said, for conservatism, politics is not redemptive.

1 comment:

Einhverfr said...: So what of those of us who reject the theocracy of the right and the technocracy of the left?; 4:24 PM, May 16, 2011

Post a Comment

Toward Our Future

What the sons of Europa need is a new religion: one that is as tribal, portable and survivalist as Judaism, as masculine, terrestrial and tough as Islam and as intellectually and aesthetically creative as Christianity...with a dose of the unflinching realism of the ancestral ways of the Greeks and Romans, Germans and Celts and Slavs..And for the larger Indo-European frame, something of the Indian capacity to combine an ultimate and philosophical realization of The One with a robustly mytho-poetic religion on-the-ground. Oh, and some of the psychological acumen of Buddhism.

Liberalism's Basic Flaw

Liberals believe that the chief role of the State is to force everyone to be equal, (ie, take vengeance on the successful). So when they are confronted with any group that they deem less well off than themselves, they are morally disarmed, completely and utterly. Any group that can achieve Victim Status is on their way to power and the (White) liberal's only job is to give them what they want, no matter how much that damages him. And nothing may ever be expected, much less demanded, of them in return. It's a recipe for suicide: no other outcome is possible.