Friday, May 2, 2014

My Favorite Leftist

That's not meant ironically. Robert Lindsay is my favorite leftist for a number of reasons. He calls himself "practically a communist," and this seems to be just about entirely for reasons of economic theory. And while most leftists are also big on economic theory, advocating a nanny state and lots of government aid to everybody, they don't really come across as feeling that way for the reasons they formerly had. The old idea, which Robert seems to retain, is that a socialist system would assure a good standard of living for the "masses," i. e., ordinary people who work and behave themselves. Now, the idea that socialism will have that effect is debatable, and I mean that literally. We can argue about whether it will work that way or not. And we can argue about whether such is system is more or less prone to corruption than free enterprise.

But put that to the side. Current leftism, from the liberals to the neocons, seems to be dedicated not to uplifting and protecting regular people to a state of actual equality, but to rewarding the dregs of society — not the poor, as such, but the dysfunctional, who are not poor because of the economic system, but because of their own defects. They seem to be dedicated to reducing the entire human race to such a state of dysfunction by making it advantageous to be dysfunctional. They advocate not tolerance, but sanction of all kinds of self-destructive behavior, like homosexuality and other perversions, divorce, single-motherhood, addiction, and just plain indolence and laziness, all of which are economically subsidized or given high status by the social elite. This distinction between old-time communists, many of whom actually wanted to improve life, and our current crop, who seem to be dedicated to destroying Western Civilization, was illustrated in a previous post HERE. The whole cult of Political Correctness is devoted to just that — destruction of all standards.

Robert isn't like that. He thinks standards are a good thing. Indeed, as far as social standards are concerned, he seems to be to the right of liberals and neocons. In a recent post HERE, which starts out about Ukraine, but segues immediately into social matters, condemning the rootless cosmopolitanism most of our leftist leaders seem to have as a goal, he writes:

I am not supposed to be a conservative, but I am a bit of one on social issues. I do support gay rights, but I respect the Orthodox Church’s stance on it. Gays are allowed into Orthodox churches and they are allowed to go to Confession. The Church vigorously opposes violence against gays. However, the Church is against gay marriage and gay pride parades, which is their right is how I see it.

Personally, I support gay rights parades and gay marriage, but not everyone is as liberal as I am. People surely have a right to their conservative values. And the rapacious greed of the West surely must be condemned. In its place, solidarity, tradition Catholic and Orthodox religion, very strong family and ethnic ties, a sense of socialist social solidarity and communalism and a general opposition to rootless cosmopolitanism, limitless greed and radical individualism.

When people attack me for “living too close to my mother” (I live 33 miles away) and going to eat dinner with my mother once a week, you know there is simply something deeply sick about our atomized culture. Really? Radical individualism has gone that far? We are all supposed to get permanent divorces from our families move to the other side of the country or globe and be permanently estranged from our own flesh and blood in favor of the most lesser ties often temporary friendships and relationships with non-kin.

Your friends leave you all the time, but your family is always there for you. That’s how I play it. So it’s Old World. So what. Families evolved for a reason. The world is a nasty and brutal place. A family is a little tribe or nation, tied by blood and sworn to protect and even spill blood for each other and fight each other’s enemies in the same ways that larger families like tribes and nations do.

You’re on your own now!

Well, fine, but I there is nothing immature about being a part of a very strong family.

Keep it in mind. Traditions evolved for a reason. Tribes and nations evolved traditions and taboos because they experimented with all sorts of ways of living down through the ages. Our forefathers may have been unscientific, but they were not stupid. If something didn’t work or tended to screw up society, it was made taboo or proscribed as against tribal tradition. Everything that was proven to work well was instituted over time as a valued tribal tradition. The stuff that worked stayed and the stuff that didn’t work got chucked.

Adults who blindly oppose tradition in the name of being modern and hip are permanent adolescents, rebelling without cause or reason. It’s is silly and irrational behavior.


And I, for one, can get behind most of that.
---------
Quibcag: I'm using Rika Shiguma (志熊 理科) from Haganai (はがない) again, because she looks cute and smart.

2 comments:

  1. I think I could actually make an alliance with some conservatives like you. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. G.K. Chesterson stated that Western culture was not based on logic and reason but on trial and error.

    ReplyDelete