The second edition of the #metalgate podcast has arrived! This one features a more acrimonious look at the split between those who want a single moral right way for all of us to behave, and those who want a more chaotic and naturalistic “do your own” thing. Is there a middle ground? Will there ever be understanding between the two? Only you can decide! Tune in for metalgate podcast issue two below.
Ugh, please stop using that image of the boy from A Christmas Story in your metalgate articles, no matter how apt it is.
Is the guy with glasses to the right, the drummer for indie band ARA?
If so, I will certainly check them out.
“those who want a single moral right way for all of us to behave, and those who want a more chaotic and naturalistic “do your own” thing”
One of the problems is that SJW’s see themselves as being that middle ground you mentioned. They CLAIM to stand up for the view that anything – any actions or belief, as long as you don’t physically harm anybody in the process – goes.
Their actions prove otherwise. Otherwise they should be happy with people who, for example, are against homosexuality in principle but who do not endorse any legal restrictions on it and certainly do not endorse physical harm to gay people.
But they’re not happy tolerating such people. Their real view is: ‘I tolerate any other opinions – as long as they’re exactly the same as my own liberal ones and anybody who deviates from them is not just wrong but is a bad person.’
“I tolerate any other opinions – as long as they’re exactly the same as my own liberal ones and anybody who deviates from them is not just wrong but is a bad person.”
The conservative position is identical with the exception of tolerance. Offenders are jailed, fined, executed or relocated under conservatism. The liberal ethical disposition is superior precisely because shaming and doxxing are far, far, less heinous and damaging.
And also permits a far narrower range of thought. Conservatives discriminate against threats, liberals discriminate against all except those who agree with them. This is the difference between an organic philosophy and an ideology; ideology creates a binary.
What is a threat to ethnic and cultural solidarity/identity? All those who disagree with that principle. Which is why conservatism has a record of beheading those who criticize the monarchy, engage in interracial/intercaste marriages, and persecute/jail/repatriate cultural iconoclasts and religious heretics.
Under the present liberal Democratic order you can openly criticise democracy, call Obama a liar, and partake in traditional ethical and conservative lifestyles without dire consequences.
Both parties desire conformance, both enforce that conformance through peer pressure. The actual difference is that one side is much more likely to destroy your life than the other.
What is a threat to life? All those who disagree with murder being illegal.
You missed the point: ideologies make the ideology itself the purpose.
National preservation and keeping murder illegal are both more organic. (Not that I’m in favor of keeping murder illegal.)
The non-human world doesn’t appear to care about murder. The tree whose roots are planted firmly in hell shows little regard for suffocating the life out of trees beneath its heaven reached canopy.
Your point was received however it unsatisfactorily addressed the arguments I raised so it was ignored. But I’ll address it:
As your writings are evidence of, you are encased within binaries. Your political thought is exemplary of the post cold war flattening of political discourse into the following binary: left/Equality v. Right/hierarchy. All liberalism is socialism is Marxism. The stark contrasts and rich differences between those three political positions are force fit into a Procrustean bed of ideology.
Taking this a step further, you reduce the binary to a Hobson’s choice, where the left has destroyed every civilization it touches and the right builds maintains and preserves civilization until the left comes in.
Granted, it’s a better gamble on what has worked well in the past, however there is always a caveat: culture, philosophy and ideology become maladaptive when environmental social and economic conditions change. The great vice of conservatism is the preservation of maladaptation leading right up to unheaval and unravel. Demonstrably so in fact.
You may be reliably able to pull your fingers backwards to get unstuck from anus’ but the moment you stick your finger into a finger trap, that same methodology of problem solving and tradition leads to certain amputation.
I don’t mean to make this personal but you identify as a conservative and your writings are published (well you know). So you are a reliable example of the genus.
Click it
Now
It is not a binary to say “This is right, and all else is not right.”
It is a binary to say, “This is right, and all that does not agree with it, is against it, and therefore is wrong.”
There is good, there is evil, and then there is the failure of categories. People are a mix of good acts and evil acts.
Liberalism presupposes that it can banish evil with a human intention.
Conservatism does not attempt to banish evil, rather attempts to stop doing dysfunctional things in the name of banishing evil.
If an idea is unrealistic, and applied at the civilization level, yes — it will do that.
Brett,
The stuff about being ‘binary’ is so hair-splitting and ad hoc that a fairy just died somewhere. Display some intellectual honesty, will you!
“Conservatism does not attempt to banish evil, rather attempts to stop doing dysfunctional things in the name of banishing evil.”
Are you serious? The concept of ‘evil’ is not conservative?
Being ‘beyond good and evil’ may have been a virtue of the ‘conservative’ Nietzsche, but it is not – and has not – been a virtue of political conservatism for at least a thousand years!
Remember Christianity?
And please, fan squad, don’t start telling us that Christianity has never ‘truly’ been conservative. Every conservative and nationalist political party from here to Ireland is represented by Christians, pretty much.
You have confused two things: believing in evil, with trying to banish evil.
Every society on earth believes in evil (in some form: they may call it something else).
Utopians like liberals believe evil can be banished through equality.
Conservatives believe it will always be with us and can never be banished.
So how to you explain the Spanish Inquisition?
Is this, despite all appearances, a proto-Utopian expression of the belief that evil can be banished rather than a conservative belief that evil will always be with us and can never be banished??
The tragedy of the word is that most modern “conservatives” are de facto liberals, especially Christians. This is why npr doesn’t have to hand pick a Christian whenever they need a token “opposition” view – any old Christian will do since they’re all cut from the same testosterone-free post-collapse cloth and by the end of the interview will have only bolstered the liberal ideology. Pastors might as well put Sextube or whatever out of business and just go ahead and supply the interracial tranny porn everybody wants rather than vain propagation of lovvy dovvy counterfeit conservatism. B.S. has in the past clarified the dire need for divorce of conservatism and religion.
You call regularly for the destruction and removal of the diseased, destructive and dysfunctional of society. What is that if not attempts to banish evil?
To the Hobson’s Choice:
What makes your ideology a Hobson’s Choice is the fact that, under liberalism’s tutelage, western civilization saw over 3 centuries of sustained economic growth and the highest standard of living achieved by any human civilization hitherto. It happens that the nations who gambled on technological and economic progress, ideological and practically, have seen the most gains. Obviously not all is gravy, but if Liberalism was as malignant as you have suggested, well, it’s doubtful we would have achieved such a thing.
The discovery of fossil fuels is a rather large contributor, if not the most significant, and yet, without liberalism and progressivism, the potential of that energy resource would not have been realized. Our problems today are rooted in the depletion of those resources and the human failure to part with the narrative that we can sustain growth and progress indefinitely. The crux is, if we found a suitable renewable alternative, then the ideology remains useful. It so happens that no such resource exists.
The truth is that liberalism and conservatism are components in a political ecosystem. Too much reform and things break. Too much conservatism and society falls into maladaptation (French Revolution/Contemporary Conservatism of Progress). Making conservatism into a panacea doesn’t hold up very well if you consider the whole system. For these reasons, yes, the political dichotomy between left and right you’ve set up IS being reduced further into a Hobson’s Choice.
By your assertion, removing broken parts from a machine is banishing evil.
Removing dysfunction is one thing; removing ideological enemies is another.
Wrong, because that existed before liberalism.
Aren’t liberals currently concerned about its overuse leading to global warming?
This is convenient for a Leftist to say, because compromise always leads to the broader principle, which is liberalism because it is mentally convenient and inoffensive.
“By your assertion, removing broken parts from a machine is banishing evil.”
Don’t deflect. Yes or no, removing the dysfunctional is removing the evil?
“Removing dysfunction is one thing; removing ideological enemies is another.”
You cosider your ideological enemies to dysfunctional and afflicted with a mental disorder. That’s a petty but convenient rationalization friend.
“Wrong, because that existed before liberalism”
Liberalism dates back at least to the 1600s in the West. The industrial revolution was a century or so after that.
“This is convenient for a Leftist to say, because compromise always leads to the broader principle, which is liberalism because it is mentally convenient and inoffensive.”
More deflection……
It’s demonstrable fact. I gave you two very good examples of conservatism failing. Care for more? How about the failure of the Roman Patrician classes to part with the religion and ideology of Empire in the midst of systematic chaos and collapse?
Would you like to know more?
Not a deflection, but an attack on your first false dichotomy.
The West was relatively prosperous, safe and stable even before that.
Not to mention that we can look at the Greek and Roman arcs.
All things fail sometimes. Some things always fail.
“Not a deflection, but an attack on your first false dichotomy.”
We are currently discussing whether or not conservatives banish evil. I suggested they do after you claim they do not. Answer the question and then we can move on.
“The West was relatively prosperous, safe and stable even before that.”
You’re tearing this out of context. My position was: if liberalism is so destruction, then we should not see over 3 centuries of sustained growth. I went on further to discuss the material and ideological reasons. If you have a specific criticism which addresses or negates my counter arguments please state it.
“Not to mention that we can look at the Greek and Roman arcs.”
Expound in detail.
“All things fail sometimes. Some things always fail.”
There’s no existent primordial civilization. We’re not short on ruins.
You attempted a false dichotomy as the basis of your argument. Attempting to deflect from that is de facto concession, and I accept yours.
What is it about doxxing and shaming that says “tolerance” to you?
Nothing. In strictly consequentialist terms, liberals are far more tolerant. Hence the comparisons.
The comparisons between what? Between two historical and discrete groups of people you invented in your head and gave two arbitrary monikers to and provided no data for?
“The conservative position is identical with the exception of tolerance. Offenders are jailed, fined, executed or relocated under conservatism. The liberal ethical disposition is superior precisely because shaming and doxxing are far, far, less heinous and damaging.”
What “conservatism” are you talking about?
What “offenders” are you talking about?
You only answered the first part. It’s the fact that the moral liberals condemn people as beyond the pale just for having unfashionable beliefs that’s the real point I was making.
Regarding your next comments, let’s define a few terms first. You seem to be defending a general viewpoint that could be described better as libertarianism rather than the modern marxoid-influenced SJW breed of moral liberalism that I was referring to.
Next, when we we’re taking about the right, let’s just keep the discussion to the modern right, not any historical viewpoint that a modern liberal would condemn as conservative even if it existed before the left/right dischotomy you mentioned had crystalised.
If you want to talk about historical political manifestations then I’ll reserve the right to mention the calamities brought about by left wing ideology in the last century ie. virtually all the evil committed in that accursed epoch – the executions in Communist Russia and China (in themselves in excess of every judicial execution in the history of conservative governments) and yes, the (national) SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY (no – a belief in eugenics doesn’t equal right wing, as I’ve posted before about Marie Stopes’ and Bernard Shaw’s beliefs on eugenics – both now deified by the left)
I’ll address more specific points below….
“Under the present liberal Democratic order you can openly criticise democracy, call Obama a liar, and partake in traditional ethical and conservative lifestyles without dire consequences.”
You could do all those things in Victorian England too.
“Offenders are jailed, fined, executed or relocated under conservatism.” That’s because it is the best solution to the problem. Conservatives are actually concerned with creating safe, well ordered societies, which involves instilling a sense that society doesn’t accept certain types of actions. Modern SJW’s would pay lip-service to this view, but their actions tell us that they don’t really care. As soon as they get any money they move away to safe areas away from (but still aware of) the horrors their ideology has created.
What is always much, much, much more inportant to the SJW than actually improving society is showing off their liberal credentials. “What? You believe that burglars should be jailed? How regressive! I believe they should just be given more chances in life, maybe a few modernist sculpture lessons. I’m more compassionate than you!”
But, of course, they’re not are they? If they really had a compassionate bone in their bodies they would actually care about the ‘workers’ who live in those aflicted neighbourhoods. But it doesn’t affect the SJW’s directly, and so, as always, they put the social status aquired by having the correct views ahead of supporting ideas that would actually help the poorest in society.
Now, most liberals portray right-wing ideology as being the method by which the rich suck the life out of the workers. If that was true, then why would all those rich Republicans, who also live in nice areas, care about harsh jail sentences for people they will never encounter. What’s in it for them? It’s because they actually care about making society function, not just having the most fashionable beliefs.
Win.
A few more minor points:
“under liberalism’s tutelage, western civilization saw over 3 centuries of sustained economic growth and the highest standard of living achieved by any human civilization hitherto.”
During at least 5/6 of that time period the growth was achieved under a Europe, and later America, that had values totally antithetical to modern moral liberalism. You’re arguing for libertarianism again, a view held by most modern conservatives, and created by conservatives. The only alternative economic systems that the left themselves have proposed, communism and high-tax redistributive socialism, have lead to stagnation in every instance.
“philosophy and ideology become maladaptive when environmental social and economic conditions change” + “Too much conservatism and society falls into maladaptation (French Revolution/Contemporary Conservatism of Progress)”
Both points correct, but you’ve misunderstood conservatism. It doesn’t believe there should never be any change. A conservative would welcome the removal of any obviously damaging element in society. But, unlike the leftist, he isn’t rabid for change for the sake of change. The left use the moniker ‘progressive’ as a badge of virtue, as if being pro any change was always a good standpoint in itself. The conservative is often suspicious of change, instinctively so with regards fundamental change, but is always prepared to debate the issue and come to an agreement on the matter – though always valuing the opinions of the wisest and most virtuous commentators above the lesser-so and also viewing, unlike the left, the huge weight of opinion from former times and of the great men of the past as being more influential than the latest trend-of-the-year.
Victorian England is a post liberalism and post rationalism example. I’d not count it as a strong counter point.
“Conservatives are actually concerned with creating safe, well ordered societies, which involves instilling a sense that society doesn’t accept certain types of actions. ”
Aciens Regime France would like a word with you.
“Modern SJW’s would pay lip-service to this view, but their actions tell us that they don’t really care. As soon as they get any money they move away to safe areas away from (but still aware of) the horrors their ideology has created.”
Well see I tried to get to the bottom of what these supposed horrors are. What have they done? Infiltrated two dead art forms: Video Games, Heavy Metal posthumously.
“What is always much, much, much more inportant to the SJW than actually improving society is showing off their liberal credentials. “What? You believe that burglars should be jailed? How regressive! I believe they should just be given more chances in life, maybe a few modernist sculpture lessons. I’m more compassionate than you!”
“But, of course, they’re not are they? If they really had a compassionate bone in their bodies they would actually care about the ‘workers’ who live in those aflicted neighbourhoods. But it doesn’t affect the SJW’s directly, and so, as always, they put the social status aquired by having the correct views ahead of supporting ideas that would actually help the poorest in society”
Humans are hypocrites. It’s a fact of life that is uninteresting and unhelpful to discuss.
“Now, most liberals portray right-wing ideology as being the method by which the rich suck the life out of the workers. If that was true, then why would all those rich Republicans, who also live in nice areas, care about harsh jail sentences for people they will never encounter. What’s in it for them? It’s because they actually care about making society function, not just having the most fashionable beliefs.”
I can think of a few reasons:
1) Repression forcing complacency with systematic imbalances that pump wealth from the lower classes to the benefit of the well to do.
2) Failure to recognize that criminality rises as joblessness increases.
Are you really this dead pan about Republicans? If they were interested in functional society, they wouldn’t pursue futile wars, imperialism, erosion of civil liberties, defense of economic speculation, and an immigration policy designed with the explicit purpose of lowering the costs of American goods sold to the middle classes by reducing the working class wage. They also wouldn’t be frantically pursuing cracking – despite the industry losing billions annually. If the Republicans were interested in functional society, they wouldn’t have had Reagan enthusiastically pillage domestic oil reserves, expand imperialism and scrap legislative penalizations on wealthy speculators. Ultimately, his most damming contribution is the move away from energy conservation into one last hurrah of extravagance. A hurry that is being echoed equally in the halls of both parties today.
Widen your perspective.
“Widen your perspective”
Do you know where you are, dude? Everyone here has it all figured out.
Just to let you know I haven’t ignored your comment, it wasn’t here when I last looked so I thought the thread had ended.
Really briefly though:
The Ancien Regime won’t be hearing from me as I’d already mentioned that I wasn’t referring to conservatism from previous centuries.
Hypocrisy is seen everywhere but it’s much more prevalent in the left, to a sickening degree, which is the point I was making.
“Repression forcing complacency with systematic imbalances that pump wealth from the lower classes to the benefit of the well to do.”
Do you really think this is the reason people believe in a tough penal code?
As for mentioning the trend that ‘criminality rises as joblessness increases’, I agree, in the sense there is positive correlation between the two in modern times. But don’t confuse trends with causal relationships. It is moral degeneracy that is the cause of criminality. Otherwise crime rates would have been much, much higher during the Great Depression than they are today, which is a society where the jobless have enough benefits to ensure they can eat (this is certainly true here in Britain.)
As for Victorian England, although I’ve broken my own rule by bringing up a historical example, once again you’re arguing for economic liberalism. This thread was really about moral liberalism and I’m sure you would agree !9th century England was both a highly socially and morally conservative society.
Similarly, the actions that the SJW’s the article was really concerning have, yes, have been directed against metal and videogames but it’s the moral atheistic liberalism that I was attacking that is the reason for the culture seen in the worst parts of our inner-cities. If you don’t agree it’s the cause, then I hope you agree it’s the main reason why the political arena is not allowed to discuss solutions that could possibly improve it. No, poverty is not the cause of crime (unless we’re talking about starvation-level poverty). How much of the crime we see in society is caused because the perpetrator is trying to get money for food or shelter, other than instances where their moral degeneracy eg. crack use has put them in such a position?
As for American Republicanism, you probably know more about it than I do, hailing from merry old England as I do. But I still believe the point I made about penal codes was a correct assessment. I would agree, however, that there is a large strain of modern Republicanism that does put the interests of the super-rich above the common good. I would argue that they are not representative of true, old-fashioned moral conservatism but are in fact a product of the self-centred, materialistic culture created by moral liberalism. Many of Geroge Bush’s actions were the result of his being ponderously stupid rather than any fundamental defect in the conservative philosophy I am arguing for.
As for imperialism, I truly don’t see that in american foreign policy. Yes, you naturally protect your national interests as all nations should. I’m not sure whether the Neo-Con hawks who started the Iraq/Afghan wars knew they were futile when they started them either. And, given that your natural oil reserves are depleted (I never knew that), I don’t think cracking (fracking?) is as awful as it’s made out. Even if it’s not environmentally ideal it certainly needs to be exploited if you are not to rely solely on imports that might not always be there in case of a calamitous future war, as one example. We both know green sources could not hope to provide a fraction of America’s energy needs for the foreseeable future.
If you want to respond to these points, great. Although I probably won’t respond here I’m sure we’ll get chance to discuss these matters again. If you get time would you mind very briefly outlining your general beliefs and inclinations at some point so I have an idea of who I’m discussing matters with in future?
I don’t disagree with anything written here.
When conservatives discuss using culture to enforce standards, what they describe is, in practice, exactly what these SJW folks employ. The caveat to that is institutionalization of conservative cultural preferences tend to lead to lead to the consequences so written about. I suspect due to a lack of agreement of life liberty and property rights
I closed it when they started talking about those that are “abusing free speech” beating their own purpose, fucking idiots.
I have a tendency to be an abrasive asshole, furthered along by the fact I have been certified insane. Thus, I laugh off things such as death threats and such that a “normal” person would not. I am fairly certain I probably could file charges for these “bad words,” but neglect to because it would only be worth merit if they followed it up with actions, and only a select few have.
I maintain my silence while they talk about it because I do believe the “normal” person’s perspective is needed here, considering most venue owners and label execs probably fall within that “normal” category. Most people haven’t had the pleasure of having a nose as beautiful as mine, thanks to a few baseball bats taken to my head. It is a fairly unpleasant sensation, so I almost understand why there may be a law against verbally threatening such an activity.
As I’ve already lost one job for saying what was on my mind when asked, and ended up going homeless, losing almost everything including rights to my kids as a result, I’m all too aware that “normal” people have an advantage when somebody says something they deem abhorrent, even something as innocuous as “I’m having a sociopathic episode.” Thus this term of “abuse” comes into play within their world. As much as I’d like to call bullshit, the laws of the land tend to favor the “normal” perspective. Baby steps…
Everyone should laugh these off. They are either bullying intended to make you quit doing whatever you’re doing, or they are serious, in which case they would not be made in public and would accompany a specific demand (“stop posting your articles or you will be killed”). In the case of the latter, the only reasonable response is to either kill the threat-maker, or publicly announce the threat and either back down or rally support.
Everyone should laugh these off.
The fact I agree with the statement doesn’t mean “normal” society does. Buddy of mine back in the mid 90s got arrested for making terroristic threats at a dive biker bar, saying “you shoot me and I’ll kill you,” in response to a threat he received. Instead of the person involved backing down, letting things escalate into a fight, or following through on his threat, he pressed the panic button and got badges involved. Not saying my friend was totally in the right, as he could’ve just shrugged it off as well, but his “put up or shut up” style retort was obviously so “triggering” that the big mean biker had to hide behind a cop shield, which briefly interrupted a few business transactions between other patrons.
Which brings me back to the point- what is normal for me, and possibly you, isn’t deemed “normal” through the current societal and legal trends. Whereas I would love to see nothing more than a swift and decisive route against these whiny ideologues, working within the system doesn’t permit such a victory.
Anything short of a massive choreographed strike against multiple political targets would just end in jail time for those involved, with the media winning the hearts and minds of the cuddlebox switching their titles from heroes to petty domestic terrorists. As such, we are forced to work within the system, and need the “normal” perspective to successfully accomplish this. Thus, baby steps.