01-30-2019, 12:25 AM
(01-28-2019, 02:54 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote:(01-28-2019, 01:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think we blues do believe we are mounted on a moral high horse compared to you reds; I'll give you that. We on the Left do think that moral values are important; but it's certainly likely that most reds believe that as well, as long as they are of the traditional religious kind, or at least moral values of American self-reliance.
I see it this way: the Left tends to base its political thought on some sort of moral values. For modern American Left (and Americanised Left in Europe) generally right to self-expression is paramount. The individual needs to have his material needs satisfied to express himself, so the Left views its as a moral duty to ensure noone is hungry. Equality is another "moral high horse" for blues, who are reds or purples on my diagram.
The Right recently believed that everyone needed to create his own luck if he wasn't born rich -- in which case he was under obligation to not live a dissipated life. That is the essence of rugged individualism in a consumer society. Now it seems to believe that the rest of humanity exists only to serve the elites so that people already rich can live dissipated lives. It's back to a Marxist stereotype of capitalism.
Quote:The Right is divided. The "old Right" with its Christian values (black on my diagram) is very moralistic, while the anti-PC "new Right" (blue on my diagram) often takes pride in promoting unabashed egoism. For example Mencius Moldbug, the "founding father" of neoreaction, mocked idealism and described secular humanism as no more reasonable than theism. I like the Christian right on some issues (mainly concerning sexual morality), but for anti-PC types like Moldbug or the UK blogger Sargon of Accad I have no feelings save disgust.
The 'Old Right' allows some sanity; tradition shows its relevance when people mock it with recklessly amoral behavior on a grand scale. Loveless sex is a bad idea; indeed, there is no more loveless sex than rape. I'll take the liberal side on feminism and homosexuality, but anyone who messes with children is a damnable pervert! I also find it repugnant that men ditch wives when they no longer look like the Playboy centerfold except for being fully clad. Cohesive families are the safest and sanest environments for children; I am beginning to wonder whether family chaos does more harm to children than does poverty.
Can we have a pro-family stance without homophobia? Sure -- if we accept homosexuality as normal. Mainstream gays and lesbians won their struggle for marital equality by excoriating the perverts as harshly as might the late Jerry Falwell. They made us realize that any child can go homosexual, and if that child goes homosexual, it is still your child and still deserves your love. Without male chauvinism? Women can choose, and they can reject the creeps. Men who genuinely support gender equality may be more effective at dating and finding spouses.
I have my bias about humanism; I consider it the only viable ideology. All else subordinates us.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.