Conservatism
Is there a single iota of conservative wisdom NOT contained in The Gods of the Copybook Headings?
http://t.co/pZUIpUGV2e
— Outsideness (@Outsideness) June 23, 2014
Well, is there?
23
Jun
It even covers the triad, doesn’t it? Free-love, pacifism, and socialism all as roads to ruin. It just goes to show that the left has been monumentally stupid for a long, long time.
[Reply]
neovictorian23 Reply:
June 23rd, 2014 at 6:32 pm
Yes, a long, long time–like the late Roman Empire.
[Reply]
[…] Source: Outside In […]
Posted on June 23rd, 2014 at 9:24 pm | QuoteThere’s some important stuff in KIm that’s not mentioned in that poem.
[Reply]
Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 12:48 am | QuoteI like the commentary at the top. Approximately: “In this poem Rudyard Kipling is clearly just a bitter old man desperately clinging to the old ways; we are more enlightened than him though”. Meanwhile, the Gods of the copybook headings are closing in. Delicious Irony, or as they say on 4chan, Top Kek.
[Reply]
Arc Reply:
June 24th, 2014 at 6:03 pm
It’s John Derbyshire… he can be a bit cynical.
You should read more of his commentaries. He takes the poem very seriously.
[Reply]
On the subject of all-encompassing summaries…
[Reply]
admin Reply:
June 24th, 2014 at 2:04 pm
Yes, that needs some focused attention soon, for sure.
[Reply]
Stirner (@heresiologist) Reply:
June 25th, 2014 at 2:05 am
A Conflict of Visions, Lakoff’s (prog alert) Moral Politics are both trying to tackle the same phenomenon. Jonathan Haidt adds in a semi-quantifiable moral framework and exposes how the right has a balanced moral system, while the left suffers from a form of moral autism. The progs simply cannot reason or moralize outside their limited moral framework.
Useful for analysis. Useful for demoralization and propaganda as well.
[Reply]
Anthony Reply:
July 2nd, 2014 at 7:53 pm
I’ve read, and reviewed, Lakoff’s Moral Politics. I think that the first two-thirds, where he’s being analytical, are brilliant. His analsysis of the difference between ordinary conservatives and ordinarily liberals as being driven by their conception of the proper model for a family relationship, is spot-on, and handles many of the seemingly weird ways in which the two sides don’t seem to make logical sense. The model is extensible to Europe, if one realizes that the patriarchal family model is *different* in Europe, which explains much of the difference between European and American conservatism. The last third, where he gets seriously polemical, is rather easy to take apart – a model for guiding interactions between tens of people isn’t necessarily useful for guiding interactions between tens of millions of people, and while most ordinary liberals believe in the “nurturant parent” model, real existing liberal policies more closely approximate the “neglectful permissive” model (more so than conservative policies approximate the “authoritarian-abusive” model).