*
Why try to save the world from collapse?
Although they have a similar perception of causes, the reason to save the world is almost opposite on the Secular Right and the Christian Right.
*
The Secular Right (libertarians, nationalists, mainstream Conservatives and Republicans) want to prevent collapse and save the world so that it can be more fully and coherently worldly.
The Secular Right hates political correctness because it is crazily throwing-away peace and prosperity for its socialist delusions of equality, multiculturalism, pacifism etc; the Secular Right want to prevent collapse and save the world to ensure continued peace and prosperity.
*
The Christian Right, in almost complete contrast, want the world to repent and reform; to recognize that the primary pursuit of peace and prosperity is wicked: the Christian Right wants the modern world to repent the pursuit of peace and prosperity: to cease to pursue peace and prosperity.
*
The Secular Right sees the decline in peace and prosperity as the causal-outcome of errors on the Left - errors such as false understanding of causality, faulty political and economic systems, bad laws and regulations, distortions by interest groups, having the wrong people in charge etc.
The Christian Right sees the decline in peace and prosperity as the punishment due to sin - that peace and prosperity are in reality and practice - at a personal level - worldly comfort and worldly distraction: and that it is wicked to live for such base goals.
*
The Secular Right and the Left therefore want the same thing - P&P, comfort and distraction - but differ about how to achieve them.
The Christian Right regards the primacy of P&P as an evil delusion - and wants a society based on something else altogether.
*
The Secular Right wants to prevent collapse because collapse reduces P&P, and leads to widespread misery and death.
The Christian Right wants to prevent collapse to allow more time for repentance (to save more souls).
*
The Secular Right warns about the nature and consequences of impending collapse because it wants to shock people into realizing that they are in danger of throwing-away what they hold most dear; to shock them into adopting a more efficient and effective system of making society more focused on maintaining expanding peace and prosperity.
The Christian Right warns about the nature and consequences of collapse because it wants to shock people into realizing that they are advanced in sin, that living primarily for peace and prosperity is the problem - not a solution.
*
At a personal level, the Secular Right aims to produce an enlightenment, a recognition that Leftist methods are false and failures.
The Secular Right aims to replace egalitarianism with enlightened self-interest.
*
At a personal level, the Christian Right aims to produce an enlightenment, a recognition that Leftist (and Secular Right) goals are false and evil.
The Christian Right aims to replace the pursuit of self-interest with the pursuit of salvation, the pursuit of holiness, of Goodness - a life aimed-at spiritual advancement.
*
Therefore the Secular Right and the Christian Right - despite the coincidence of anti-Leftism - want quite different, almost opposite, things from society; want quite different, almost opposite, things for themselves; and are pointing in quite different, almost opposite, directions.
*
6 comments:
The Secular Right is too Nietzschean for my soul. If they were to get what they want, I imagine a nightmare world, which is why I am extremely skeptical about being allied with them. Since I don't work with them, it would only be an alliance in spirit, even that of late feels contaminating.
Do you think that Christianity actually leads to spiritual advancement? One tends, automatically, to assume it does, but in my experience, it can only lead as far as it leads, and then caps any further possibility of advancement.
To go above and beyond tends to be labeled sinful, even blasphemous. That is why I have come to see Christianity as just another dogma, far removed from what it might achieve, and instead, achieving far less.
I have no doubt that Christianity serves far better than does its absence. I tacitly support it, mainly because there is great value in its commandments.
To live by these would go far towards setting right all that has gone so undeniably wrong.
I do, however, believe the whole structure of the religion needs a thorough rethink. What worked for mediaeval society works poorly for the contemporary era.
Opposite? What direction are you pointing? I loathe the "gamers" and don't trust them any further than I can throw them, but your critique seems alot more broad. From where I stand it appears that priority number one is for government to just start back pedaling with a vengeance. Maybe you are thinking about what comes next?
@Crow - I know what you mean - but yes Christianity has these resources, as I realized from reading about the Eastern Orthodox Saints and the like (for example the Northern Thebaid by Seraphim Rose (which I think you would like) - so, in a way, I agree we need to go back before the medieval: ie. before the Great Schism in the Catholic Church.
I hope to blog on this further over the next couple of days.
@GR - I'm not sure what you are asking.
I think your analysis contrasting the Secular and Christian Rights is fairly good as far as it goes.
Where I would disagree with it is that you reduce the motives of the Secular Right to basic pleasure seeking and optimization of peace and prosperity. True, for the more extreme Libertarians, this is as far as their thinking takes them. They are the most Left-wing of the Secular Right. However, for the rest of us the motivating idea is actually freedom as a Good in itself.
From freedom comes peace and prosperity, yes, but if you ask the average Secular Rightist if he would trade his freedom for a guarantee of the latter he would resoundingly refuse. That is what he hates about Socialists.
With freedom comes the possibility for individual achievement and true morality. In fact, only a free human being is capable of moral action. Isn't that supposed to be one of the reasons Christians believe God permits evil things to happen: because Man has free will?
On this, we agree. We agree on Truth, Beauty and Morality too. Where we differ is that we do not feel that an imaginary deity makes any difference (except perhaps as a psychological inducement to good behaviour; there is some evidence for this).
I would submit that in fact that the correct division of the world should not be Christian Right vs. the Rest but Secular Right vs. the Rest.
Only the Secular Right places primary moral responsibility on the individual. All other creeds are collectivist.
Communists can achieve salvation by sublimating their own desires for the the good of the people. The Fatherland does the same for Nazis and Fascists. For Muslims it is submission to the will of Allah. For Christians all they have to do is believe in Jesus and they will be saved, no matter what kind of a creep they may be in other respects.
To these kind of people the purpose of their lives is exogenous. It is defined by the collectivist system they believe in. For the Secular Right, the purpose of their existence is for them to discover or create by their own actions.
It may be the West is doomed. If so, only the Secular Right will mourn what is lost - the one, brief shining moment of sanity and reason. The Christian Right will be cheering its demise along with the PC Left and the Muslims and the Communists.
From my point of view, the Secular Right IS the True West.
This reality does not matter to Christians, they only care about saving as many souls as possible(religious utilutarism). I do not agree with this position, for me it seems meaningless. The idea of hell and heaven was created by Zarathustra, who wanted to encourage people to behave well, so he saw this world as internally meaningful. Christians did not understand this and accepted going to heaven as self-worth and in fact the only thing that matters, thus making being a Christian the only important thing.
Post a Comment