Monday, July 16, 2012
The Parties are Over
Even the conservatives are waking up to what has happened (when liberals "wake up", they either convert to traditional men, or else go into a deeper dream state worse than the first, so I hold no hope of their "grouping", but this is a promising trend, because conservatives still have some good instincts).
As I explained to my boss recently, I disagree vehemently with either liberals or conservatives - but here is a difference. If the Left lived up to its own standards, I would still be obligated to oppose them, come what may (and I'll note here that I might even include the "classical liberal" of old times in this boat of the Left, as much as I love Lord Acton). However, if the conservative party lived up to its own standards, I would be proud to denote myself a factional party man. Except of course, they can't, because factions and parties are doomed by their false foundation, which is collective, rather than built upon individual enlightenment.
In this vein of thought, I think a reworking of classical liberalism is in order - there is much to be harvested out and explained and kept, but the fundamental idea that "man is born free" is totally skewed. In fact, it is a relatively new propaganda item to even claim that this is what "classical liberals" (even men like John Adams) ever taught to begin with. Jefferson and Paine, maybe & yes, but even the Founding Father revolutionaries knew a mob-man when they saw one, or a vulgar couchpotarian.
Classical liberals were generally men of aristocratic leaning (or else they openly sided with revolutionaries like Garibaldi), who believed in the maximum amount of freedom that was possible, feasible, desirable, and useful (in Baron Ledhin's description). In an expanding world of European chivalry with industrial benefits and centuries of Christian education behind it, this may have had a rather artificially large scope. Unless we are willing to go back to the medieval village, our Empire will have to be governed by mandarins. The question is, will we qualify them by forcing them to master virtue and "useless knowledge" (read, metaphysics and a capacity for noetic appreciation of supersensible truths), or will we allow them to be the "bright and shiny calculators and self-made opportunists" which they have evolved of late?
It's quite true to say today that Democracy has become Kakistocracy (as it had to, were we to read the Greeks and Romans). There is no such thing as Large Scale Direct Democracy, except in Hell. Hell is the perfect democracy.
The entire Western process has degraded the spiritual castes (estates or levels of being) and its order into mush, all in the guise of Sweetness and Light. There will be no answer, until the virtuous defeat evil by converting it to good. Then we will have rule by those who are annointed, rather than self-annointed.
Do you want to be ruled by bankers and career opportunists, or a wise man who reluctantly rules "in the path of heaven"?