Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Is There Conservatism Beyond Christianity? (or how to book a mental vacation in Athens or Valhalla) Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/is_there_conservatism_beyond_christianity_or_how_to_book_a_mental_vacation#23206 Post contents: Carl, I can't speak for anybody else, but I admire much of Mencken's work -- and up to a point the man himself-- for the same reason that I can admire much of the work & character of, say, fervently anti-Catholic journalist George Orwell: Because I am not, or at least try not to be, an ideologue who is blind to the individual & particular virtues of those who do not share the Faith... much less (much, much less importantly) those who happen not to share "paleoconservativism" with me. I really only refer to myself as "paleoconservative" as a term of convenience. I grow increasingly inclined to think "paleo" refers more to a certain temperament & attitude, vice a specific set of clear-cut principles re/ political philosophy, religion, etc. Was Mencken a proto-paleo, or was he not? Who cares? For that matter, in the final analysis, who cares about "conservative", either? I mean, yes, conservatism is a valid & worthwhile principle, and yes, we can safely describe as "conservative" many admirable men.... ... but at some point, at the bottom, SOMEWHERE, shouldn't we start to care a little more about whether a man or principle is TRUE, than whether we can apply the sticker that says "conservative" onto him/it? @Kevin S. : "He, unlike most paleocons, is willing to looking critically at the effects of a market-based society from a conservative point of view. Palecons tend to try to reconcile their demand for a free market with their desires for a stable, conservative society..." Perhaps your critiques are accurate re/ some paleos, but the paleo writers I am familiar with -- and here I use the simplest definition of "paleo", i.e., those who consciously choose to call themselves such -- utterly *loathe* any propaganda on behalf of "the free market". If I'm not mistaken there've been several debates within the Takimag itself on the subject: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/sometimes_a_hamburger_is_just_a_hamburger/ Paleos & Libertarians have gone at it over the free market pretty fiercely over at Chronicles, too. I don't have the link handy but I think we're at a civil enough level that you can take it as read that I'm not trying to pull a fast one. Caper is of course correct about those occasional smart-aleck philosopher/thinkers of the pagan world... the difference today being that their attitude has become the norm vice the exception, and it is especially assumed to be the norm among self-styled intellectuals. I would make an exclusion, in my previous remarks, for Julius Evola -- I have read "Ride the Tiger", and it seems to me that Evola is actually striving for some sort of real grip on reality and eternity, and I don't get the sense that he is just trying to erect contrived symbols. Possibly Benoit, too -- though I haven't read anything by him. I hardly take Sid's condemnation as the final word. But the fact is that regardless of what Evola thinks, I have yet to encounter a rank-and-file "neopagan" who promotes neopaganism by anything other than a utilitarian ethos. Which is as much to say that ultimately Richard Dawkins is right, it's all just "memes", and all religions are make-believe in the end, only some have survival value by deluding us into hope during our pointless struggle for existence. If this is one's take, well, OK... Except that in that case the neopagan must recognize that he/she has more in common with liberalism than with ancient paganism. Both Christianity & ancient pagans agreed that Man is made by and for the purposes of God or the gods. Whereas both modern liberals & modern pagans (again, the ones I've encountered) seem to agree that God or the gods are made by and for the purposes of Man. This is a huge issue: Both ancient pagans & Christians expressed humility toward the Divine... whereas moderns (of whatever stripe) who think gods are tools we invent most decidedly do not. Frankly I'm more inclined to think that a certain type of metaphysically-minded yet nonreligious scientist -- of whom I've met quite a few -- has more in common with the ancient pagans than anybody. Such scientists tend have not so much rejected Christianity as they have never really seen it or considered it; meanwhile their belief in some form of transcendent order or harmony is based on actual observation, and thought. That is, it is a belief about *objective* reality. Not Joseph Campbell-style mythic archetypes. I mean, hell, if we're going to pretend to believe in Athena, then why not worship the Incredible Hulk? He's stronger, and could smash our puny enemies into itsy-bitsy pieces. Sent at: 2008 11 23