Well, is there?

June 23, 2014admin 11 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations


11 Responses to this entry

  • Lesser Bull Says:

    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.


    neovictorian23 Reply:

    Yes, a long, long time–like the late Roman Empire.


    Posted on June 23rd, 2014 at 5:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Conservatism | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on June 23rd, 2014 at 9:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • fnn Says:

    There’s some important stuff in KIm that’s not mentioned in that poem.


    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 12:48 am Reply | Quote
  • nyan_sandwich Says:

    I 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.


    Arc Reply:

    It’s John Derbyshire… he can be a bit cynical.

    You should read more of his commentaries. He takes the poem very seriously.


    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 5:57 am Reply | Quote
  • Thales Says:

    On the subject of all-encompassing summaries…


    admin Reply:

    Yes, that needs some focused attention soon, for sure.


    Stirner (@heresiologist) Reply:

    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.


    Anthony Reply:

    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).

    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 1:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction – The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] Land helpfully defines Capitalism for us. See also some perspicacious commentary on Conservatism and […]

    Posted on March 26th, 2016 at 8:43 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment