| From | Message |
stephen gosling
Guest
4/09/2003
04:56:51
|
 Subject: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
Why in the defence of Southern Conservatism by the spokesmen of the rising neo-confederate movement is their no defence of the idea of Aristocracy(a central tenet of the original defenders of Southern Conservatism). Populism is no substutute; it just deflects from a correct reading of Southern Conservatism, properly understood and defended.
|
Joseph
Guest
5/03/2003
15:55:48
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
I would say for the same reason that the few black confederates of the Civil War are being played-up by the neo-CSA. To some degree every conservative accepts some liberal progressive principles, out of honest belief or out of realization that public opinion can never be changed on the issue. No one will defend aristocracy unless they do so on principle with no real belief that they will succeed in politics.
It all goes back to the American Revolution when European society, the British monarchy etc were made the scapegoats for the patriots. Every loyalist was forced to leave the country and very soon afterwards America developed a political culture that was totally opposed, without any real thought or consideration, to such things as monarchy and aristocracy. Today ideas relating to race and gender issues have been added to this.
No one who wants to succeed in politics in the US would defend aristocracy, just as no one would defend monarchy, segregation or telling women they should stay home & take care of the kids. The culture has become opposed to these ideas.
|
Shawn
Guest
5/03/2003
18:49:20
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
Putting aside for the moment the issue of of a seperate South, to which I am opposed, on what grounds would anyone defend aristocracy? Did it have any legitimate function or worth? Were not much of the European aristocracy little more than tranzi hedonistic parasites who sneered at the conservative morals and parochialism of the peasents and the "middle class"?
|
Louis XIV
Guest
5/04/2003
01:26:11
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
Shawn,
For ideas on why one would defend aristocracy see Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America," where he compares and contrasts the newly-established democracy in the U.S. with the aristocracies of Europe. For starters, he notes that aristocracy is a better defender of freedom in general and free speech specifically. Additionally, based on the direction the New World democracy was moving, Tocqueville also (correctly) predicted the emancipation of women in America. These are just a few reasons why one would defend aristocracy.
As for your comments regarding "hedonistic parasites" I would direct your attention to the culture of the American Republic in our lifetime, where the entire population is composed of hedonistic parasites, not just the ruling elite.
|
Louis XIV
Guest
5/04/2003
01:38:50
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
Shawn,
For ideas on why one would defend aristocracy see Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America," where he compares and contrasts the newly-established democracy in the U.S. with the aristocracies of Europe. For starters, he notes that aristocracy is a better defender of freedom in general and free speech specifically. Additionally, based on the direction the New World democracy was moving, Tocqueville also (correctly) predicted the emancipation of women in America. These are just a few reasons why one would defend aristocracy.
As for your comments regarding "hedonistic parasites" I would direct your attention to the culture of the American Republic in our lifetime, where the entire population is composed of hedonistic parasites, not just the ruling elite.
|
Shawn
Guest
5/04/2003
07:32:12
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
"As for your comments regarding "hedonistic parasites" I would direct your attention to the culture of the American Republic in our lifetime, where the entire population is composed of hedonistic parasites, not just the ruling elite."
With respect I do not entirely agree with this. While hedonistic and parasitical behaviour may be common in the cities to some degree, there still remains in many areas, especially in rural America, a culture of hard work, Christian morality, and patriotism.
I will take up your suggestion to read Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America". I would also like to point out that my questions were out of genuine interest and not meant to be combative.
I am not convinced that the kind of inherited aristocracy that existed in Europe is, or was, a good basis for a moral society. At the same time I recognise that the current system of near universal suffrage and easy citizenship is producing in the cities, and to a degree elsewhere, a society that is increasingly selfish and nihilistic.
I have long advocated that we need to limit both full citizenship and democratic suffrage in some way. We need to produce an elite that can rule, but one that does so from a genuine moral basis. Inheritance to my mind does not ensure this.
My own preference would be to limit full citizenship and the right to vote only to those who are prepared to freely perform some kind of national service, be it military or otherwise, for a specified length of time.
This of course would on its own not solve all the problems we face, but as part of an overall strategy it could be one way of turning the tide.
|
Louis XIV
Guest
5/05/2003
00:45:49
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
"I am not convinced that the kind of inherited aristocracy that existed in Europe is, or was, a good basis for a moral society....We need to produce an elite that can rule....Inheritance to my mind does not ensure this."
Sounds to me that you favor an aristocracy of merit instead of birth, which is basically what Napoleon was all about. The Napoleonic Empire was an aristocracy of wealth and education; the rulers were a mandarin class not based on inheritance. I have no contention with this type of system and consider it one of the greatest regimes in world history.
"While hedonistic and parasitical behaviour may be common in the cities to some degree, there still remains in many areas, especially in rural America, a culture of hard work, Christian morality, and patriotism."
Maybe in rural areas of aristocratic Europe you could find the same. If this is true, then your use of the topic is pointless because a hedonistic/parasitical culture has no regard to whether the regime is an aristocracy or a democracy. I suspect it has more to do with human nature and the effect wealth has on it.
One important point I forgot to mention last time was Tocqueville's biggest reservation about democracy: the tyranny of the majority. He noted that democracy could be just as tyrannical as any other form of government including aristocracy. He feared greatly for the rights of the minority in a democracy.
Another point that could lead one to support aristocracy over democracy is Tocqueville's link of the increasing democracy in the modern world to the increasing amount of irreligiosity. I believe that he implies in his work that the two are connected.
I think whether one supports democracy or aristocracy is more about his own philosophical/ideological leanings. Why one is a communist or libertarian depends on his own vision for human society and how he thinks men should be governed.
An interesting point: despite his findings, Tocqueville did support democracy over aristocracy.
Democracy in America
|
Louis XIV
Guest
5/06/2003
04:00:44
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
One more thing: if your concerns with aristocracy are moral-religous ones then I would point out the example of Saudi Arabia, in which the royal family rules the country as their own personal property. The monarchy is hereditary, although I am unsure of the role aristocracy plays in the country. The ruling elite has always supported morality and religion; in fact, they have promoted them more so than any democratic republic of which I can think. If you don't like Islam, then you can replace it with the religion of your choice; the principles still remain. And the fact remains that the Saudi monarchy is the greatest defender of the conservative/moral society on the Arabian peninsula today.
|
Joseph
Guest
5/12/2003
20:00:44
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
An elite that rules through merit may sound ideal but is not ideal in practise. Imperial China was such a nation and the people ultimately found communist revolution favorable over the ruling class of educated scholars.
I must also agree that democratic America cannot point fingers at anyone for being immoral or hedonistic. America is after all the world's leading producer of pornographic material and the highest violent crime rate. Though, as I said, no one will defend aristocracy in this country because they have been brainwashed into a hatred of all things "Old World".
|
Louis XIV
Guest
5/13/2003
02:08:10
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
...the people ultimately found communist revolution favorable over the ruling class of educated scholars.
People most everywhere in the 20th century have found communist revolution favorable to everything except hedonistic democracy.
For factual information on exactly where the violent crime comes from I recommend:
Jerry's Racial Violence Statistics Page
|
Shawn
Guest
5/14/2003
19:35:38
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
I do advocate the idea of an elite based on merit. That elite must be voluntary, not based on birth. Morality, as in love of God, Nation and Family, can only be freely chosen, or it is not true love, and therefore not truly moral. The European aristocracy was overthrown because it was corrupt. Power given freely has no value. It only has value to he who has had to earn it. Worse, power given freely, especially at birth, without any struggle and self-sacrifice, too easily leads to abuse of that power. Birth proves nothing. A person who has demonstrated through voluntary national service, their willingness to put the Nation first, and in the case of military service, the survival of the Republic above their own individual survival, has already at least demonstrated one of the most basic of moral virtues. Moreover, such a system would not require any radical change in the character of the Republic or the Constitution, as limiting democratic franchise was the norm in the early decades of U.S history.
"Imperial China was such a nation and the people ultimately found communist revolution favorable over the ruling class of educated scholars."
Given how long the Chinese system lasted for, I'm not sure this demonstrates anything. Communism in one form or another also ended up replacing the European aristocracy.
No system will of course be perfect, not will any system be totally immune to corruption. This world is marked by sin and evil, and until the final day we can only fight as best we may.
|
Joseph
Guest
5/15/2003
17:24:33
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
Did not Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot all *earn* their power? People who earn their position often have the most arrogant attitude because of that. They believe that, since they are the ones who achieved power themselves, that they are superior and have the right to do whatever they like. People who inherit authority are constantly faced with the fact that nothing they did put them where they are. And how do you earn position? Most things people credit to merit is actually built on money. Who has the money to obtain a higher degree, who has the money to run a political compaign, who has the money to buy political support and air time on tv. In an aristocracy or a monarchy, there is no amount of money in the world that can influence who will be born to their particular position, it is the "Grace of God". Since the top job is always beyond political influence, I maintain that it will always be more beneficial than total democracy.
|
Louis XIV
Guest
5/18/2003
07:45:20
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
A person who has demonstrated through voluntary national service, their willingness to put the Nation first, and in the case of military service, the survival of the Republic....
If you want something along the lines of the Islamic Republic of Iran, then I will support you 100% of the way. Khomeini was one of the greatest men of the 20th century I believe, ranking up there with Franco. The West must have fundamental ideological revolution.
|
Shawn
Guest
5/19/2003
18:31:10
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
"If you want something along the lines of the Islamic Republic of Iran, then I will support you 100% of the way. Khomeini was one of the greatest men of the 20th century I believe, ranking up there with Franco. The West must have fundamental ideological revolution."
No. What I want is the American Constitutional Republic, but with a limitation on democratic franchise, as I have said, based on national service. I would not agree with any kind of state church as Iran has. Moreover, as Khomeini and his regime are responsible for waging terrorist war against the U.S and our allies I do not share your enthusiasim for him. On the contrary I consider the Iranian regime the enemy of the United States.
What the west needs is religious revival and a cultural revolution, but this should come from below, through a change in people's hearts, not through state enforcement as has happened in Iran. Having the state enforce a state religion and its codes leads to resentment and rebellion, as is now happenning in Iran.
|
Louis XIV
Guest
5/19/2003
20:54:10
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
...Khomeini and his regime are responsible for waging terrorist war against the U.S and our allies....
What evidence is there that Khomeini and Iran are responsible for terrorism? What acts of terrorism have they committed? I have seen no evidence linking them to al Qaeda, and I doubt Iraq has any connection as well.
I care nothing for the allies of the U.S., as they are just as impossibly democratic as America is.
I consider the Iranian regime the enemy of the United States.
Then I like the regime all the more. The post-1960's U.S. regime is embarrassingly immoral and should be destroyed.
"Republics declines into democracies, and democracies degenerate into despotisms." - Aristotle
|
Shawn
Guest
5/21/2003
18:52:31
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
"What evidence is there that Khomeini and Iran are responsible for terrorism? What acts of terrorism have they committed?"
Iran supports Hizbollah, a terrorist group responsible for attacks upon Americans. Moreover, they also support Palestinian terror groups such as Hamas.
"I care nothing for the allies of the U.S., as they are just as impossibly democratic as America is."
On the contrary, America, Israel, Great Britain are all amongst the most democratic nations on earth.
"Then I like the regime all the more. The post-1960's U.S. regime is embarrassingly immoral and should be destroyed"
All nations have a level of immorality becuase all men are sinful from birth. But America is in many respects one of the most moral nations on earth, especially by comparison to continental Europe. Conservative Christianity at least remains a social, cultural and political force in America. It is dead in Europe.
Your fact free anti-Americanism is based on the usual arrogant falsehoods spouted by Muslim postmerdinist radicals and the European far left and right. the truth is Europe is far further down the path of anti-Christian secularisation and internationalism. Europe has abandoned national sovereignty while America has largely retained it. Christian morality still exists in many parts of America, where does it exist in Europe?
Your comment about the destruction of America is absurd and marks you as an enemy of my country. On that basis I have nothing more to say to you, except to wish the same fate I hope to see for all America's enemies.
|
Louis XIV
Guest
5/22/2003
01:34:47
| RE: Aristocracy: Defence of.
IP: Logged
Message:
"I care nothing for the allies of the U.S., as they are just as impossibly democratic as America is."
On the contrary, America, Israel, Great Britain are all amongst the most democratic nations on earth.
Your statement does not refute mine; it just supports it.
America is in many respects one of the most moral nations on earth...
This is false. I went into exile from the U.S. just four months ago due to the impossible situation there and have been in three different countries since. Of course I did not go to Europe because it is worse than America. You are right on that point.
While I was in Hong Kong, I discovered that communist China is in many ways far more moral than America is; although that cannot be said about Hong Kong itself. The same can be said about an Arabian country I lived in for a while, and the country I am at now. If you yourself have not lived and worked outside of the West then you have no basis for comparison. This is probably why your statements are so obviously false.
Your fact free anti-Americanism...
I am not anti-American. I am a proud American who is anti-democracy, anti-hedonistic, anti-capitalistic, anti-greed, and anti-immorality.
...the truth is Europe is far further down the path of anti-Christian secularisation and internationalism....
I accept this as true.
Your comment about the destruction of America is absurd and marks you as an enemy of my country.
I am an enemy of the post-1960's culture that misrules America.
"The democratization of Europe is at the same time an involuntary preparation for the rearing of tyrants" - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|