| From | Message |
Friedrich Nietzsche
Guest
6/08/2003
09:26:42
|
 Subject: The problems of the West
IP: Logged
Message:
I would like to bring up for discussion a topic I have seen broached in several places at On To Restoration: the socio-cultural problems of the West and how best to rectify the situation.
The counterrevolutionary response I have seen thus far is the Burkean idea that political problems are at bottom religious problems; hence the problems of the West are primarily metaphysical. I do not think the evidence supports the Burkean claim; hence this post.
I start by rejecting the Burkean idea. Political problems are at bottom legal problems. What I mean by this is simply that our country has bad laws. What is currently legal in the West needs to become illegal, and what is illegal needs to become legal. This is a general rule, and of course there are exceptions. But the ills of the Western world today are caused by bad laws and nothing else.
One can go all the way back to 1787 and find problems in the basic charter of America, but the major statutory damage was done in the 1960's and 1970's; revolutionary laws were passed, and these, and nothing else, are the cause of the ills of today. Repeal these laws and America's socio-cultural situation would improve substantially. What the West needs is a war against democracy. The democratic system must be scrapped, and I believe it should be replaced by a political system of absolutism.
Counterrevolutionaries who still believe that the West's problems are religious problems, I would like to know how you deal with the fact that so much of religion today is modern and anti-counterrevolutionary.
For the Catholics, I would like to know you deal with the fact that Pope John Paul II is himself fairly revolutionary, and he seems to be quite religious, more religious than the atheist popes of the Medieval period. His Letter to Women written for the United Nations conference should be a good enough example.
For the Protestants who believe the West needs religious revival I would like to know how you deal with the same fact. The greatest religious revivalist I can think of is the Protestant Billy Graham who was modernist and everything else contrary to what we believe.
The same things can be said with most other Western religions in our lifetime. Not only is religion not the solution, it oftentimes is the problem. Increase religiosity and in some cases the problems of the West will only get worse.
The great problem of the West is not lack of religion, but democratization. This--and nothing else--is the root cause of the problems of today. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
|
paleocon
Guest
6/09/2003
01:28:26
| RE: The problems of the West
IP: Logged
Message:
Democracy may be at the core of the problem, but replacing it with what you call 'absolutism' isn't the answer. The problem is 'democratic absolutism.'
|
Friedrich Nietzsche
Guest
6/09/2003
04:02:20
| RE: The problems of the West
IP: Logged
Message:
The problem is 'democratic absolutism.'
Democratic absolutism is an oxymoron; it's like saying "communist capitalism." Absolutism is the antithesis of democracy.
I still think paleo "conservatives" should be called what they really are, paleo liberals.
"We must classify all our male citizens and make military training a regular part of collegiate education." - Thomas Jefferson
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/10/2003
18:55:43
| RE: The problems of the West
IP: Logged
Message:
Mr "Nietzsche":
You speak of "political problems" and even "the great problem of the West," which you name "democratization." This "great problem," you tell us, began with "bad laws" in the United States and presumably in Europe and the United Kingdom, as well.
Whatever do you mean by "problem" and on what grounds do you distinguish goods laws from "bad laws"? Why do you think Americans and Europeans chose and stick with "bad laws"?
It seems to me that you may be more "metaphysical" than you'd like to believe.
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/10/2003
20:09:39
| RE: The problems of the West
IP: Logged
Message:
You mention the "revolutionary laws" that were "passed" in the 1960s and 1970s. Such language implies that the "revolution" happened in the legislatures during that time. Of course, any student could tell you that the revolution happened in the last quarter of the 18th century, just as textbooks say. But in any event, many laws, especially of a moral character, were indeed killed during that period, because they (laws) had been informed by a particular religious sense which leading citizens no longer found compelling, and which believers couldn't make compelling for those who didn't share their belief. Those "revolutionary laws" only surprise you because you're enamored with the Judeo-Christian moral hegemony which dominated the liberal West till the late 60s. The first liberal democrats (e.g., the American founders, the founders of the French Republic) took Judeo-Christian morals for granted but there was nothing in their system that postulated them over any other morality--or anti-morality. So the "revolutionary laws" of the 60s and 70s aren't at all revolutionary; they didn't overthrow anything except one set of moral opinions. In liberal democracies everything but the bare legal framework is mere opinion. Who's to say, for example, that sodomy is wrong, Mr. Nietzsche? Without God, it's arbitrary to condemn or praise the practice; tyranny in the first case and license in the other. Legalizing sodomy may've been surprising or even diappointing for some but it wasn't revolutionary. You should read your own books better.
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/10/2003
20:38:57
| RE: The problems of the West
IP: Logged
Message:
You cite the "modern and anticounterrevolutionary" character of contemporary Catholicism and Protestantism as proof that there's no religious "solution" to the "great problems of the West." If by "solution" you mean a triumph over today's powers, you're wholly correct. Christianity, neither Catholic nor Protestant, will overthrow IN A POLITICAL WAY the frantic, furious law-hating spirit which dominates us. However, that doesn't mean the "great problems of the West" aren't fundamentally religious. Perhaps the history of modernity (from Luther to Lenin) has been the history of apostasy, of a great, deliberate rebellion against God and His Church. And perhaps the Church will even suffer crucifixion and an apparent death in the manner of her namesake. That would only confirm the Church's teaching about itself. What's happening to the Catholic Church is merely a political failure; according to her own centuries-old teaching it's the fulfillment (albeit painful) of prophecy.
And why the distrust of religion at the end of your message? Liberal democracy only arose after the rebellion against the Catholic Church in Europe. Doesn't that suggest a friendly relationship between the Catholic Church and anti-democratic or at least heavily qualified democratic social arrangements?
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/10/2003
20:53:54
| RE: The problems of the West
IP: Logged
Message:
NB: "Christianity, neither Catholic nor Protestant, will NOT overthrow IN A POLITICAL WAY... "
|
Friedrich Nietzsche
Guest
6/22/2003
01:00:48
| RE: The problems of the West
IP: Logged
Message:
...on what grounds do you distinguish goods laws from "bad laws"?
Good laws are those laws that conform to the principles outlined in the basic writings of the counterrevolution, such as Anti-Inclusiveness FAQ, Anti-Feminism, and Vindicating Stereotypes and Discrimination. Laws not conforming to the basic principles of the counterrevolution are bad laws.
Why do you think Americans and Europeans chose and stick with "bad laws"?
Political society is cyclical, and we are in the democratic phase that Plato describes in Book viii of the Republic. Why do you think Americans and Europeans chose and stuck with "good laws" during the 17th century? Equal opportunity legislation would have been absurd to the most liberal person.
...the revolution happened in the last quarter of the 18th century....
While I oppose the American Revolution, the socio-political changes of that time period were far different than the changes of the 1960's. Marxism had not yet been developed and so cannot be considered a factor. Also, demands for basic civil liberties should be looked at differently than demands for extreme democratization.
The first liberal democrats (e.g., the American founders, the founders of the French Republic) took Judeo-Christian morals for granted....
To claim that the the founders of the French republic took Judeo-Christian morals for granted is absurd. They tried to destroy all taints of the morality from their society to the point that it was impossible.
Who's to say, for example, that sodomy is wrong, Mr. Nietzsche? Without God, it's arbitrary to condemn or praise the practice....
Actually, homosexuality is one of the easiest things to oppose based on rational-scientific grounds. Human evolution--in fact, all evolution--has occurred due to one fact: heterosexuality. Just looking at the male and female anatomies, one can determine that heterosexuality is the natural order of the human species. The same is true of the lower animals. Even trees reproduce due to a male-female mating process. If you turn this natural order upside down, life itself cannot and will not exist. This is probably why human societies that accept homosexuality are soon relegated to the history books.
Of course, this is the path the West is currently taking; it is up to us to find a way to survive the crafty/credulous "equality" coalition that now misrules us.
|
Friedrich Nietzsche
Guest
6/22/2003
01:28:07
| RE: The problems of the West
IP: Logged
Message:
Perhaps the history of modernity (from Luther to Lenin) has been the history of apostasy, of a great, deliberate rebellion against God and His Church.
No, the history of modernity is the history of greater and greater democratization as Tocqueville and other decent thinkers have told us.
And why the distrust of religion at the end of your message?
I guess because Western religion, in and of itself, has proven to be a failure for the socio-political agenda of the counterrevolution. We spend more time fighting religion than promoting it.
Liberal democracy only arose after the rebellion against the Catholic Church in Europe.
Well they sure are in cahoots today.
Doesn't that suggest a friendly relationship between the Catholic Church and anti-democratic or at least heavily qualified democratic social arrangements?
The history of the Catholic Church suggests it is no different than any other organization. It changes as the socio-political climate changes, siding with Napoleon in one generation, Hitler in another, and liberal democracy in another.
I did not intend for my original post to be so much anti-religious as non-religious. Also, religions outside of the West have failed as well.
Just as the big issue of the 1930's was not religious, so the same is true today. Those who claim otherwise are simply wrong. The solution to the problems of the 1930's was more government involvement in the economy. I don't think most people want to hear about the unchangeable, unstoppable, and only solution to democracy.
"Republics decline into democracies, and democracies degenerate into despotisms." - Aristotle
|
|
|