Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 2:05 pmFor quite a while the left was characterized as anti-hierarchy, which was seen as bad - the anti part. But Christ and Christianity undermined hierarchies. The founders of the nation undermined hierarchies. At the very least it seemed to me that Wizard and AJ put forward general rules about what is bad about liberals/The Left, but don't seem to notice or want to notice that if these rules were correct much of what they believe to be good traditions, should never have been accepted.
I think the unraveling of certain kinds of authority is fine, if the authority is pernicious or causes more problems that it solves. A kind of decomposition, which is necessary in nature. The issue is whether the authority at issue or the hierarchy at issue should be kept. There's no need to classify the people you are talking to and the general rules that get held up: modern, destructive, secular, hierarchy, authority, tradition, multiculturalism
just don't hold up if one goes back in time and looks at what happened in the past and where things came from.
I don't think Secularists have a good understanding of Hierarchies in general...to me it seems quite clear, Christianity, Catholicism, pick any other religion, spiritual hierarchies revolve around
inter-generational politics. It's not about you; it's not about me; it's not about any one individual or family. Rather, it's about a
whole society over time. Thus, when Westerners refer to 'God', they explicitly and implicitly present God as the apex Authority
of the whole society over time.
This is a simple point—yet one that doesn't seem to stick among the Secular/Liberal/Left, regarding spirituality.
I believe there are specific reasons for this, namely, in how politically-obsessed the Liberal-Left are, historically, to gain societal and cultural power...which means trying to deprive that societal-cultural power from the Conservative-Right. In other words, the Left needs its own "Catholic Church", which it simply doesn't have. Since the Enlightenment, Secularists and Marxists have argued that "
Muh Science!" or "
Muh Secularism!" or "
Muh Liberalism!" fills the gaps, so-to-speak. But it doesn't. Because there's no real nor substantial history behind or underneath the cultural or religious-Left.
This goes back to the main point in my religious-left sex thread:
the Left cannot offer a moral system that defends any notion of Homogeneous Family.
When that is *ALL* that the Right does, and needs to do!
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 2:05 pmWizard's most recent post seemed to miss the fact that the CORE and only clearly communicated message from AJ about his position in this thread has to do with something Wizard thinks is false, ( even if he does think it's fine if all the stupid sheep in society hold a belief that, to him, is bullshit.)
They certainly share similar reactions to many current phenomena, but as far as the thread topic they are very, very far apart. An Aristocratic (elitist) Nietzschian is absolutely a product of among other things the Enlightenment (irony there) and not at all aligned with the call for the formation of an intimate relationship with a deity, a relationship that is considered necessary to the core. That it is the very essence of moving the West to a better place. And not in the sense of, give that to the unwashed peasants because it keeps them in line and they're too stupid to be in the lofty intellectual realms of Wizard.
And, actually, I think it would clarify a lot of they could actually hash out their differences. Because then we'd see what AJ considers necessary and perhaps if even his core metaphysical idea is necessary, because Wizard certainly doesn't hold it.
I asserted to AJ and IC a few months ago, that if any 'progress' is to made, the cultural-Right needs to set aside our differences and work together toward a common or universal goal, to counter-attack and push back the cultural-Left. IC failed to heed my warning and suggestion. However, my intentions are clear. If AJ feels my positions are problematic, I don't doubt he'd press me on them.
Go on...what problems are there, exactly Iwan??
— but that is not exactly O y G’s real focus. He does not describe the process of emergence of this mass man as an entire negative and he certainly notes the •positive• aspects. But he really is an aristocrat and a developed •sophisticated• intellect. In that he is a rare, valuable man. 
