Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Misoir
First of all, neither materialism nor internationalism are liberal democratic ideals. Materialism and nationalism are conservative ideals,
idealistically opposed to liberalism and egalitarianism.
Materialism is a form of liberal democratic ethos as materialism embraces the core concepts of every socio – economic ideal from Liberalism
(Classical and Modern) to Marxism (Communism and Socialism). Materialism bases itself around economic principles rather than political ones as its
main focus. For example, Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same coin to me because I view Communism as merely the inversion of Capitalism.
Both hold onto materialistic conceptions of the world.
Internationalism is both a Liberal and Socialist view which first emerged during the French Revolution of 1789 with the main phrase of theirs being
‘citizen of the world’. This is tied into the democratic movement which is fundamentally opposed to a hierarchical or aristocratic socio –
If you don't support liberalism and egalitarianism than you are diametrically opposed to the very ideals on which the U.S. was founded, as laid
forth in the The Declaration of Independence, where they substituted the pursuit of happiness for property.
I believe in the right to private property but that it is fundamentally undermined with a ‘public’ government like that of a democracy or
republic. And yes, I know my views are diametrically opposed to those of the founders.
Your problem, like other conservatives singing the same song, isn't that the republican party doesn't represent you, they do, but that the
policies and ideals you support, consistently lead to economic failure, and a break down of our society. Tax cuts for the super rich, failure to
enforce laws against crooked business activities, big military, and oppression of individual liberties based on religious intolerance consistently
First of all, it saddens me you cannot think of others outside of the political sphere of commonly expressed Conservatism. America does not have any
true Conservatism to be fair.
1. I do not believe in Capitalism as it is a materialistic construct developed to subject the governing body to the whims of an imaginary ‘invisible
hand’. This ‘hand’ is nothing more than a lie developed to allow speculators, mass investors, and opportunists to control the society.
2. Big business should be smashed, period. A cap placed on the size of all businesses enforced by the government with most of the local branches of
corporations turned into worker co – operatives. The closest economic system to my views is Distributism but I will not adhere to it simply because
economics is subject to politics, not vice – versa.
3. I do believe in a strong military but am opposed to foreign interventionism abroad. My general views fall in line with that of Ron Paul.
4. My views on modern religion are extremely negative as I feel that it has been perverted by democratic, human rights, and egalitarian ethos. The
churches refuse to speak out forcefully against modernity. Freedom of religion I do not agree with, freedom from persecution based on your religion I
do agree with. The Roman Catholic Church for example is far too liberalized, especially after Vatican II which I vehemently opposed for its
modernizing of liturgical practices.
Now, maybe you don't support a big military or government regulation of individual behavior based on religious intolerance, but most
conservative do believe in these things. In addition, tax cuts for the super rich and failure to enforce laws against fraudulent business activities,
will always lead to a military police state, where individual liberties are suppressed under religious intolerance, as these things support the power
of the super rich, as history has demonstrated over and over again.
The merchant/capitalist class or, bourgeois, should not be the ruling class. Manipulating or making money is not the sole reason for existence nor
does it mean one has the ability to properly govern. The masses are far too stupid to govern themselves and should not be treated as though they are
anything but that. The rich should be subject to a higher political class which is made up of religious, intellectual, military, and hereditary
figures, much as nearly all functioning systems throughout history have been. A Republic can be acceptable but not one founded on democracy,
egalitarianism, or secularism.
The republican party was from the beginning, a conservative party, with support of some liberal beliefs, such as the abolition of slavery, and
the rights of family farmers over plantation owners. The embrace of the radical religious preferences demonstrated that at its heart, the republicans
Once again you prove the poor grasp you hold of political history. During the 18th through early 20th centuries the Protestant religions were key to
advancing Liberal ideas; arguably it was the Calvinist doctrines which began the ‘Enlightenment’ which spawned
Liberalism/rationalism/scientism/individualism. The same is true for the 19th century as the social justice aspect of religion was used to advocate
many social reforms which they felt went against Christian doctrines. They were wrong of course because they interpreted the religion liberally, not
This is the same reason as to the current existence of ‘social justice’ in our political debates; it was originally a Christian doctrine but was
used by Socialists and Progressive Liberals to advance their cause. Christianity has also been turned into a religion of pacifism from an emphasis on
particular texts over other ones; for example, even most fundamentalist Christians begin to squirm when you mention God commanding his subjects to
kill entire peoples because it goes against their pacifist values. People now assume they can use their rationalist and secular Christian morality to
The Democratic-Republican party started by Jefferson, which changed to the Democratic party under Jackson, was always liberal, and believed in
liberal democracy and egalitarianism. They were moved towards conservative beliefs by conservative Southerners, who had always been conservative,
where most of the loyalists during the Revolutionary War were located, and who are very religious.
Actually the South was the hotbed for much of the Classical Liberalism in America. The only ‘Conservatism’ was actually expressed in the
Federalist Party and some of it transferred over into the Whig Party. Alexander Hamilton was the closest to Conservative we have ever had in America.
Unlike what others may tell you, Classical Liberalism fused with religious fundamentalism does not
a conservative make. The best example of
this is that the Federalist believed vox populi to hardly ever be vox Dei, while the Democratic – Republicans disagreed.
Today's Democratic party fails to represent the working class, possibly more than any time in our nations history. They have become elites who
look down upon workers as inferior people.
This I will not disagree with.
What we need is a party that recognizes the importance of the democratic process, which actually supports the common citizen against the
tyranny of giant institutions.
Well I agree with opposing large corporations as you should by now know my feelings towards them and towards the wealthy capitalists, but I staunchly
disagree with your evaluation of the democratic process. But my views are largely academic and will presumably never be implemented without a serious
change of beliefs in the West. I am an ardent reactionary in all definitions of the word and do not apologize for it.
edit on 1/15/2012 by Misoir because: (no reason given)