tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post5243335525510250091..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Announcing Eltham TraditionalistsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-83311318919240683102009-10-10T03:16:29.503+11:002009-10-10T03:16:29.503+11:00old hat writes:
"Liberalism ... sends us off...old hat writes:<br /><br />"Liberalism ... sends us off on a quest to find ourselves when we're not actually lost."<br /><br />I think this is very true, and is one of the keys to the success of liberalism. It feeds on an increasingly conspicuous trait of Westerners, that it is only the next hot upcoming thing that will bring us happiness, whether material or conceptual.<br /><br />Regarding right-liberalism vs. conservatism, it sounds as though the former prides itself on being a replicable model for post-modern societies, whereas traditionalism is more often expressed as unique communities and local or national heritage. It stresses the perennial nature of ethnic and cultural history and addresses the problems created when these are disturbed by natural upsets or competing systems.<br /><br />Perhaps this is a reason liberals (of all stripes) tend to be forward-looking while conservatives tend to reach back to their principles.<br /><br />Obviously there is an historic periodicity to all of this and I suspect liberalism, or much of its main framework, will give way to more traditional ways of life in the future. In the meantime there is not much to be gained from the isolation and diminution that "real" conservatives suffer nowadays. As Mr Sutcliffe suggests, there are some clear areas of philosophic overlap between the two right wing segments.<br /><br />It seems to me the unmovable difference between traditionalism and right-liberalism is the source of, and transmissible understanding of, a moral convention. I do not believe any "personal morality" will stand to support any society in the long run, no matter how upstanding a majority exists in the subject society. <br /><br />A standard of truth whose source is a realm outside men is needed, even if it grates against all of our collective intellectual "enlightenment". It is not about feeling good in our beliefs but where we seek truth as a unified society.<br /><br />Thanks to Mark and M. Sutcliffe and others for such an enlightening thread. <br /><br />leadpbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-29196682660759391352009-10-08T04:28:42.465+11:002009-10-08T04:28:42.465+11:00Mark,
Understood. Thank you very much for your ki...Mark,<br /><br />Understood. Thank you very much for your kind reply.<br /><br />If I might also add, I greatly appreciate your willingness to reply personally to the comments left on your site.Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-52378456231867031072009-10-07T22:50:22.889+11:002009-10-07T22:50:22.889+11:00Bartholomew,
Let me attempt a different answer, b...Bartholomew,<br /><br />Let me attempt a different answer, based admittedly on my limited reading of Evola.<br /><br />The tradition that I seek to conserve is a specific, identifiable one. It is the historic Western tradition, but without the dominance of a corrosive liberal politics.<br /><br />The tradition that Evola apparently wanted to revive is not as specific. It seems to involve bits of Eastern religion, bits of Nietzsche, bits of Renaisance occultism, bits of highly speculative thought about polar race origins, bits of caste theory and so on.<br /><br />It therefore strikes you on reading about it as idiosyncratic. I don't think it's a grounded basis for launching an intellectual challenge to liberalism.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-65215992908356944332009-10-07T22:22:39.791+11:002009-10-07T22:22:39.791+11:00Bartholomew,
I don't know a great deal about ...Bartholomew,<br /><br />I don't know a great deal about the Traditionalists that MCB refers to, so I can't give you a point by point comparison.<br /><br />I've read a little about Evola (but nothing by him). I have to say that it doesn't appeal to me - he was into the occult, and wrote speculative material about Atlantis, primordial celestial Hyperboreans and so on.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-4359893972307374882009-10-07T09:41:34.966+11:002009-10-07T09:41:34.966+11:00OK, I read a bit more on the website, and I think ...OK, I read a bit more on the website, and I think I'm beginning to understand MCB's point. <br /><br />I would still appreciate a point by point contrast, though, if you wouldn't mind.Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-61415260180660155832009-10-07T09:26:03.793+11:002009-10-07T09:26:03.793+11:00Hello Mark,
I looked briefly at Cordelia For Lear...Hello Mark,<br /><br />I looked briefly at Cordelia For Lear and didn't notice anything off the wall. Did I miss something? If you have time, would you mind summarizing your differences? Thanks. And thank you for your blog.Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-14625068172342400722009-10-07T07:32:33.352+11:002009-10-07T07:32:33.352+11:00Mild Colonial Boy, I hadn't thought of that.
...Mild Colonial Boy, I hadn't thought of that. <br /><br />I doubt if it will cause confusion to most Australians, who wouldn't have heard of Evola.<br /><br />I suppose it's one problem with the term traditionalist (not the only one), but there are problems with the term conservative as well. I'm not aware of any problem free alternative.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-34681325667984848002009-10-07T05:17:48.873+11:002009-10-07T05:17:48.873+11:00Mr Richardson, I was wondering whether you are con...Mr Richardson, I was wondering whether you are concerned at all that by calling yourself Traditionalists - people might confuse you with the Traditionalists of the Rene Guenon and Julius Evola school such as Cordelia for Lear (http://cordeliaforlear.blogspot.com/) or The Traditionalists (http://traditionalistblog.blogspot.com/)?Mercurius Aulicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05130901970855873480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-54987215938145348212009-10-06T22:34:36.757+11:002009-10-06T22:34:36.757+11:00"give me an example of something that exhibit..."give me an example of something that exhibits a higher morality but actually reduces individual quality of life."<br /><br />Just as a simple example, what about something like duty? The concept that you're part of something more than yourself and you have a duty to contribute to it. What about "doing the right thing", this is something that we generally know and isn't necessarily the fun thing to do. Aren't these things important and moral? How do they fit into right liberalism? They come with obligations so they might reduce individual quality of life on your calculus.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-7317356757554904972009-10-06T10:26:10.571+11:002009-10-06T10:26:10.571+11:00"Most people with a libertarian bent that I k..."Most people with a libertarian bent that I know are people like myself: happily married, often with kids, university educated, salaried professionals, usually involved with sport or outdoor pursuits, and often with a large involvement in some form of community, military or academic service."<br /><br />You misinterpret my description of libertarians. I'm not suggesting they aren't successful (the word introvert wasn't intended as an insult) just the opposite, they are usually intelligent, relatively successful, highly rational and self-contained types who don't need a lot of help from other people.<br /><br />The problem is they convince themselves (particularly the left libertarians) that just because a highly individualistic philosophy can work for them, it can work for society as a whole, and that it should be exported around the world.<br /><br />They also forget their success depends on good genetics and the cooperation of other members of society - both of which libertarians ironically endanger with their liberal attitudes to immigration, and perhaps trade.<br /><br />The fact is most people aren't very successful and aren't very independently minded, so they're not really keen on a philosophy which is primarily focused on maximising freedom for society's most successful.<br /><br />Again, my opposition to libertarianism is based on two key points:<br /><br />A. despite having had both money and intellectual talent, after half a century libertarians have failed to check the progress of left liberalism, especially in the cultural sphere. <br /><br />B. I don't think libertarianism can work for society as a whole, and neither does most of society.<br /><br />This is not to suggest that there aren't aspects of right liberalism which are worth preserving, or that traditionalism doesn't have its problems either, but just that right liberalism in its pure form is a destructive and impractical ideology.Mike Courtmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15226171376902020196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-59440513447601303982009-10-06T01:12:27.865+11:002009-10-06T01:12:27.865+11:00I think that's a bit harsh. I also think the l...<i>I think that's a bit harsh. I also think the left wing rise is an inevitable consequence of the rise of utilitarian or right liberalism.</i><br /><br />The rise of the left comes from two things, someone generates some wealth, success or freedom, and the mob decide they want some of it because they have a majority.<br /><br /><i>The utilitarian maxim, maximum amount of happiness, comes down to letting the majority decide the rightness of every issue or else determining what will maximise the economy and prosperity.</i><br /><br />This is not what right liberalism says. In fact, right liberalists consider this mob rule. Right liberalism claims the 'rightness' is determined through reason, and that may in fact mean limiting what the majority can influence over the individual.<br /><br /><i>Socialism uses the same social calculus as the right liberals, maximise the economy,.......</i><br /><br />Socialism has other values that socialists usually can't define, called 'equality' and 'social justice' among others. Right liberals believe in justice in the traditional sense.<br /><br /><i>When enlightened self interest takes the place of every ancient piety and institution society is fragile and without strong foundations. <br /><br />We've seen what happens in the 20th century when societies abandon injunctions and morality.</i><br /><br />You refer to this morality, but just as left liberals can't really define 'equality' and 'social justice', you don't define your version of morality either. So the quality of individual human life isn't key to morality? Without defering to a faith based concept like religion, give me an example of something that exhibits a higher morality but actually reduces individual quality of life.Michael Sutcliffenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-68465464619342239482009-10-06T00:54:03.742+11:002009-10-06T00:54:03.742+11:00"We've seen what happens in the 20th cent..."We've seen what happens in the 20th century when societies abandon injunctions and morality".<br /><br />I'm reffereing to Nazism and Communism here.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-6837982607284406842009-10-06T00:48:49.095+11:002009-10-06T00:48:49.095+11:00"Sure, right liberalism won post Enlightenmen..."Sure, right liberalism won post Enlightenment and had a couple of hundred years of dominance - hence the rise of the West. But left-wing notions crept in like a disease and are now undermining the benefits of all right wing politics, conservative or right liberal."<br /><br />I think that's a bit harsh. I also think the left wing rise is an inevitable consequence of the rise of utilitarian or right liberalism. <br /><br />The utilitarian maxim, maximum amount of happiness, comes down to letting the majority decide the rightness of every issue or else determining what will maximise the economy and prosperity. There is no morality in this equation except that its moral to grow wealth or consult the people. <br /><br />The idea that there is nothing really except the maximisation of (economic) happiness or the promotion of freedoms is a reductive material one. The idea of morality is not simply about economics or freedoms. It has stronger and deeper ties.<br /><br />Socialism didn't sneak in late in the process it was there from the start. Starting with French radical republicans and morphing to Marxism. Socialism uses the same social calculus as the right liberals, maximise the economy, empower the people (or the party on behalf of the people) and merely puts utilitarianism to a different goal of communitarian revolution on behalf of the working class. <br /><br />"If you live in a society which says that it's all about freely choosing what you do and maximising your own pleasure and happiness, then what does honour have to do with anything?"<br /><br />When enlightened self interest takes the place of every ancient piety and institution society is fragile and without strong foundations. We need greater truths than individual desires or economic interests to really live well together. We've seen what happens in the 20th century when societies abandon injunctions and morality <br /><br />If you’re asking what’s better, socialism or right liberalism, indeed most would agree right liberalism is better. But there are substantial differences between right liberalism and traditionalism or conservatism which are important.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-53555003455740922902009-10-05T23:15:13.134+11:002009-10-05T23:15:13.134+11:00So to make contracts work there has to be somethin...<i>So to make contracts work there has to be something that reaches beyond contracts - something like a sense of honour.</i><br /><br />Call it honour if you like. If you enter into a contract voluntarily you should honour it. It's an essential aspect to the voluntary cooperation in civil society, and right liberalists have never claimed otherwise, even when they are espousing individualism.<br /><br /><i>But where does this come from? If you live in a society which says that it's all about freely choosing what you do and maximising your own pleasure and happiness, then what does honour have to do with anything?</i><br /><br />Civil society is where people voluntarily interact. In doing this they are free to seek their own benefit and improve their own lot in life and this shouldn't be considered a bad thing. To achieve these benefits of this interaction contracts need to be upheld, for example, it's a good thing that people lend money, but if the lendee doesn't uphold their end of the contract and repay it on the agreed terms then this good will disappear. Hence, it is morally right to uphold contracts, and a moral citizen will do this by their own choosing. If you don't intend to uphold a contract then don't enter into it - no one is forcing you. You conservatives call this honour (and I agree this is honourable behaviour).<br /><br /><i>Honour actually violates the liberal principle. It provides a ground that limits a free choice in what we do and which leads people to act against what would maximise their pleasure or benefit.</i><br /><br />You don't have to enter into any contract. No one is forcing you. You may continue living your life exactly as you were living previously to being presented with the option of the contract. If you choose the path of entering into a contract then you should honour it. You can't really define that as limiting free choice as a civilised person. The only choices that are limited are those of acting as a thug or thief, and no one is upholding those as a rational basis for a society. (Right liberalists agree with conservatives that with due process, people who are unable to act as a civilised person have no place in society and we should have the courage to deal with them appropriately.)<br /><br /><i>It also explains why, when people now argue for marriage, they instinctively do so not in terms of duty or honour but in "therapeutic" terms:</i><br /><br />There's nothing wrong with arguing for marriage in terms of its benefits. They're real benefits and evolution (or in your case, God) made the sexes as naturally complementary so we should be taking advantage of this fact and getting these benefits.Michael Sutcliffenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-10548160161201503182009-10-05T22:52:29.146+11:002009-10-05T22:52:29.146+11:00What I was getting at is that all human relationsh...What I was getting at is that all human relationships have a contractual element, it's just another way of saying you should live up to your obligations. Right liberalists believe you should live up you your obligations despite embracing the concept of individualism. I think we both agree marriage is more than a contract, it just has a serious contractual element that all too often is not treated as serious or binding.<br /><br /><i> But you guys have won, traditional notions don't dominate. They're mostly just a distant echo today. </i><br /><br />Sure, right liberalism won post Enlightenment and had a couple of hundred years of dominance - hence the rise of the West. But left-wing notions crept in like a disease and are now undermining the benefits of <i>all</i> right wing politics, conservative or right liberal. The success of the Western world was due to right wing philosophy and we're now seeing it's decline. People on the right should be working together to stop these socialist and left liberal diseases, rather than trying to undermine each other. Lets identify the common ground, there's more of it than you might think.Michael Sutcliffenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-65938823013396597172009-10-05T22:45:38.521+11:002009-10-05T22:45:38.521+11:00Being a man of your word makes you laugh? Saying &...<i>Being a man of your word makes you laugh? Saying 'I do' and meaning it makes you laugh?</i><br /><br />So to make contracts work there has to be something that reaches beyond contracts - something like a sense of honour.<br /><br />But where does this come from? If you live in a society which says that it's all about freely choosing what you do and maximising your own pleasure and happiness, then what does honour have to do with anything?<br /><br />Honour actually violates the liberal principle. It provides a ground that limits a free choice in what we do and which leads people to act against what would maximise their pleasure or benefit.<br /><br />That, presumably, is why qualities like honour and duty are no longer spoken of much. <br /><br />It also explains why, when people now argue for marriage, they instinctively do so not in terms of duty or honour but in "therapeutic" terms: marriage makes you live longer; saves you money; leads to more socially functional outcomes for children and so on.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-48210206948311720782009-10-05T22:35:32.751+11:002009-10-05T22:35:32.751+11:00"I support your right to view materialism in ..."I support your right to view materialism in any way you choose. I just don't think you should force your views on materialism on to other people who feel differently to you."<br /><br />Michael we just aren't the majority. We're not enforcing anything. Historically liberalism was a movement against. Marxism was a movement against. But you guys have won, traditional notions don't dominate. They're mostly just a distant echo today. <br /><br />"Being a man of your word makes you laugh? Saying 'I do' and meaning it makes you laugh? Living up to your end of a bargain makes you laugh? Making sure you don't mislead others makes you laugh? You conservatives sure are a strange lot!"<br /><br />Well maybe I can't speak for all conservatives but I find the earnestness with which financial notions, such as contracts, are believed in slightly funny. I think its such a narrow basis for morality. That marriage should be just a contract ...Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-61187276274342076882009-10-05T21:59:53.688+11:002009-10-05T21:59:53.688+11:00I have to say this made me laugh. Nothing is sacre...<i>I have to say this made me laugh. Nothing is sacred but contracts.</i><br /><br />Being a man of your word makes you laugh? Saying 'I do' and meaning it makes you laugh? Living up to your end of a bargain makes you laugh? Making sure you don't mislead others makes you laugh? You conservatives sure are a strange lot!<br /><br /><i>But I don't think the morals of the merchant class truely serve as a good basis for the rest of society. They're far too materialistic.</i><br /><br />I support your right to view materialism in any way you choose. I just don't think you should force your views on materialism on to other people who feel differently to you.Michael Sutcliffenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-43102882347734636552009-10-05T21:51:53.921+11:002009-10-05T21:51:53.921+11:00"The reason she shouldn't just skedaddle ..."The reason she shouldn't just skedaddle is that she has entered into a contract."<br /><br />I have to say this made me laugh. Nothing is sacred but contracts. <br /><br />"You can't legislate to make people be polite to each other or to eliminate poverty."<br /><br />I think that's the point tradition doesn't need law to force it its what people think and respect. Its the temper, common sense and inheritance of the society. Personally I think, as you say, that its the left who love law making. <br /><br />I agree that the creation of wealth is a social good and that it helps solve many of the problems of society. But I don't think the morals of the merchant class truely serve as a good basis for the rest of society. They're far too materialistic.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-49587156718662183662009-10-05T21:22:36.734+11:002009-10-05T21:22:36.734+11:00Firstly I agree that there are great synergies to ...<i>Firstly I agree that there are great synergies to be had with right liberalism.</i><br /><br />Actually, Jesse, this is what I came here to do. Perhaps all the bickering proves why it's so hard to achieve those synergies.<br /><br />I'm happy for some religion as a moral basis. I'll take my kids to church even though I'm an atheist. I don't think it should be universally harder to get divorced, but I support the protection of the family, perhaps through more effective marriage contracts. I think we could both agree that welfare should be centred on a hand up rather than a hand out. And despite liberal theory, there's plenty of right liberals that believe there are damaging effects to open immigration despite the economic benefits. And I love western culture and heritage and want to bring my children up in that fine tradition.<br /><br />Surely we could find some common ground in all that and put it to practical political use.Michael Sutcliffenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50917990775771090032009-10-05T21:13:03.204+11:002009-10-05T21:13:03.204+11:00Perhaps what if instead of just losing your job yo...<i>Perhaps what if instead of just losing your job you were sick. Perhaps in a way that you couldn't take precautions against. Maybe your wife wouldn't want to stick with you. She could do better elsewhere, maybe looking after you would be a drag. I don't see any obvious reason why under right liberalism she shouldn't skedaddle.</i><br /><br />The reason she shouldn't just skedaddle is that she has entered into a contract. You have agreed to enter into a relationship with certain terms and conditions, and she should honour those. It's the same reason you shouldn't be unfaithful even if you think you could get away with it. Right liberalism holds contracts as an essential part of civil society.<br /><br /><i>Isn’t it then your duty to say, Oh well I should really do the right thing and let my wife look elsewhere, off to the home for me?</i><br /><br />Now, I'd like to think we could have an arrangement that carried us through and we could both be happy. But if we couldn't, if looking after you meant that her life would have to be sacrificed as well as yours, wouldn't you offer her the chance to go? As a man, who loved that woman, wouldn't you want her to have every chance to pursue happiness? Who's being selfish here; the conservative or the right liberal?<br /><br /> <i>Liberalism seems to be based in large part on everything going well. Choose, shop, explore, maximise.</i><br /><br />Well it is based on 'maximise' - maximising the quality of human life. Right liberalists believe that's a moral thing to do.<br /><br />No matter what legislation you pass, you can never stop people losing their jobs or getting sick or any of the other unfortunate events that befall people. But you can set up a system that provides people with the maximum opportunity to overcome these events - that's what right liberalists try to do. All too often conservatives and socialists try to enforce a new reality through legislation, which is impossible. You can't legislate to make people be polite to each other or to eliminate poverty. But you can legislate to create a solid basis for strong civil society or to create more wealth and opportunity, so <i>individuals</i> can build a polite society or work their way out of poverty.<br /><br />And, or course, left liberals just seem to want to legislate according to some fairy world that exists only in their heads.Michael Sutcliffenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-73345966732949051442009-10-05T18:46:55.478+11:002009-10-05T18:46:55.478+11:00Firstly I agree that there are great synergies to ...Firstly I agree that there are great synergies to be had with right liberalism. Also that right liberals are generally the majority in the engine rooms of the economy and they obviously contribute colossally to society.<br /><br />A few points.<br /><br />"Most people with a libertarian bent that I know are people like myself: happily married, often with kids, university educated, salaried professionals, usually involved with sport or outdoor pursuits, and often with a large involvement in some form of community, military or academic service."<br /><br />You mentioned that you came from a left liberal and Christian background. I think there may well have been strong undercurrents of traditionalism in your life that you could take for granted. Not everyone has that, its still something that has to be acknowledged or fostered. <br /><br />"It's people like yourself who seem to be constantly complaining (on sites like this) about your problems with women, and how the world doesn't work for you."<br /><br />Ok. imagine you were fired from your workplace, (wouldn't happen I take precautions, take care of myself). Well not everything in life is under our control. (Ok I'd go out and get another job, right liberalism leads to economic progress so there will be more jobs overall for me to take). Well what if you couldn't get one. Perhaps what if instead of just losing your job you were sick. Perhaps in a way that you couldn't take precautions against. Maybe your wife wouldn't want to stick with you. She could do better elsewhere, maybe looking after you would be a drag. I don't see any obvious reason why under right liberalism she shouldn't skedaddle. Or at least under right liberalism it would be viewed as an unfortunate situation rather than scandalous or wrong (But she loves me) Ok but maybe she also liked the lifestyle or whatever, looking after people isn‘t easy. Isn’t it then your duty to say, Oh well I should really do the right thing and let my wife look elsewhere, off to the home for me? <br /><br />Liberalism seems to be based in large part on everything going well. Choose, shop, explore, maximise.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-14740768107124016122009-10-05T13:20:15.314+11:002009-10-05T13:20:15.314+11:00Despite its numerous flaws, left liberalism does h...<i>Despite its numerous flaws, left liberalism does have one edge at the ballot box, and that is its veneer of social responsibility, something which right liberalism, being focused purely on individualism, doesn't have.</i><br /><br />Left liberalism has a veneer, and right liberalism has results; like being responsible for the majority of wealth in the world today, and in doing so the negation of the most poverty, and the majority of scientific progress, which probably adds up to post-Enlightenment right liberalism being the single greatest contributor to human progress at this point in human history. Certainly the single greatest contributor to human progress in the last 1000 years.<br /><br /><i>This is why the only people who vote for libertarian parties are, lets face it, middle class male introverts, who are by natural dispostion, the least social members of society.</i><br /><br />This is the standard line from people such as yourself, but I don't see it. Most people with a libertarian bent that I know are people like myself: happily married, often with kids, university educated, salaried professionals, usually involved with sport or outdoor pursuits, and often with a large involvement in some form of community, military or accademic service. We're the succesful ones because we take responsibility for ourselves. What are you? It's people like yourself who seem to be constantly complaining (on sites like this) about your problems with women, and how the world doesn't work for you.Michael Sutcliffenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-43678444302275008622009-10-05T10:54:06.388+11:002009-10-05T10:54:06.388+11:00Here's R.L. Dabney on "Northern Conservat...Here's R.L. Dabney on "Northern Conservatism", which is the same as today's Washington-New York axis of Neo-Connery.<br /><br /><i>It may be inferred again that the present movement for women's rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its "bark is worse than its bite," and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it "in wind," and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women's suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, it, final position. </i>Jaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-85690268461450065342009-10-05T10:18:31.957+11:002009-10-05T10:18:31.957+11:00"There are women who are better being men and..."There are women who are better being men and vice-versa. A work colleague of my wife is a lesbian of the bull-dyke variety. I started talking to her at a function thinking this isn't going to go far as I really don't relate well to, what I thought would be, a man-hating left-winger. The moment she spoke the feel of the conversation was completely different to what I expected. I was talking to a man. She wasn't contrived or forcing her natural self in any way. She was a man who just had a woman's body and we talked like two blokes at a barbecue over a beer."<br /><br />OK, the argument here seems to be that right liberalism is a bio-realist philosophy, which takes account of natural human variation, while left liberalism and traditionalism try to force people into mainstream boxes (left liberalism unnaturally suppresses males and traditionalism suppresses women and gays).<br /><br />While this sounds like a reasonable philosophy - just let nature takes it course, right liberals haven't done a very good job of defending their position against the liberal left.<br /><br />Take for example, the male roll in the family. How many times to you here a right-liberal saying something like: "while a minority of men may accept taking over the domestic roll in a family, the vast majority have a natural desire to be the main provider - trying to pressure men into taking on a roll they aren't suited too just isn't going to work."<br /><br />- you don't, the only serious cultural criticisms of left liberalism come from traditionalists.<br /><br />When push comes to shove, right liberals almost always seem to retreat from the cultural battles with the liberal left and try and hid behind economics, and hope that market forces will contain the excesses of the liberal left (eg, if welfare spending and taxes are reduced, there will be less single parent families and things like whiteness studies on university campuses will have to be cut through lack of funding) <br /><br />Unfortunately, this anti-leftism through neoliberalism is very unpopular with the vast majority of voters, and is easily defeated at the ballot box by the liberal left, who claim it is cynical, elitist and hurts ordinary people (and possibly, as Mark points out, anti-women).<br /><br />Despite its numerous flaws, left liberalism does have one edge at the ballot box, and that is its veneer of social responsibility, something which right liberalism, being focused purely on individualism, doesn't have.<br /><br />This is why the only people who vote for libertarian parties are, lets face it, middle class male introverts, who are by natural dispostion, the least social members of society.<br /><br />Of course, you could say that alternative right wing positions like traditionalism have also failed to sway the masses, but traditionalism has been shut outside of mainstream discourse since the late 1960s, so at least it has a viable excuse.Mike Courtmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15226171376902020196noreply@blogger.com