| From | Message |
Tree of Liberty
Guest
11/02/2003
06:09:14
|
 Subject: Radical Traditionalism and the New World Order
IP: Logged
Message:
http://jkalb.freeshell.org/texts/RadicalTraditionalism.html
The political battle today is therefore in men's minds rather than the legislative chamber, the polls, or the streets.
But is it? Wouldn't it be easier to change the country's laws than to change the mind of a committed 20th-century liberal? You would probably have about as much luck changing his mind as he would changing the mind of a committed counterrevolutionary.
The goal should be socio-cultural change, which comes through political-legal change. The latter comes first. It also has the ability to shape minds.
Unfortunately, modern ideologies will not disappear in our lifetime; it seems we will not be able to convince everyone that the old is better than the new. I have thought that in 1650 there was not a single anti-racist on the planet; and today they are everywhere in the West, so many of them that we cannot realistically expect them to die out in our lifetime. Therefore, we must rely on legal and political change.
Street justice is something Europe is familiar with, but not America. I think the European way of doing things is long over due in North America.
---
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. - Jefferson
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
11/02/2003
14:51:36
| RE: Radical Traditionalism and the New World Order
IP: Logged
Message:
But barring an invasion from Mars you can't have political and legal change that isn't part of people's mental world, and the latter is either confused or quite radically modernist today. Traditionalism needs to be an intellectual presence before it can guide what happens practically.
|
Novariana
Guest
3/12/2004
18:07:12
| RE: Radical Traditionalism and the New World Order
IP: Logged
Message:
"But is it? Wouldn't it be easier to change the country's laws than to change the mind of a committed 20th-century liberal? You would probably have about as much luck changing his mind as he would changing the mind of a committed counterrevolutionary."
When Ronald Reagan caled Soviet Russia "the evil empire" he was still talking what most liberals regarded as heresy. The anti-anti-Communism of the liberal establishment affected the great majoriy of people in the academic and mass-media worlds and large numbers of them were prepared to argue that the "peoples' democracies'" definition of democracy was not inferior to the Western liberal-capitalist definition.
President Reagan, despite appearances, was ahead of his time. The decades-old support of Communism by international money was about to end, and with it the support (or at least anti-opposition) of the mass-media and the academic establishment. In less than a decade (in most cases very much less), people who had espoused one view of what Communism was and meant for the whole of their intellectual lives switched to another view - one not that far removed from the one they had spent their lives excoriating as "reactionary".
The point I am making is that most liberals are far from being committed and principled beings who would adhere to their beliefs under any circumstances. On the contrary, they take their views wholesale from their paymasters and those views can be changed by fiat virtually overnight.
They are imposed by a mixture of persuasion, saturation, reward and punishment (the latter two mostly in the sphere of career incentives and disincentives). Whoever holds the strings moves the puppets.
In order to find a solution, we must see the problem as it really is.
|
|
|
