The projected worldviews of Liberals and Conservatives

Originally posted by Astrocyte
It seems to be a rehashing of the same crap between atheists and theists.

It seems atheism vs. theism or "evolution vs. creationism" is an extension of liberal vs. conservative. Yes, of course there are conservative atheists and liberal christians but in majority and in general American Christian-ism springs from the right and American Atheism springs from the left.

Sometimes I wonder whether these extreme polarities are the results of hegelian social engineering.

I'd say my most boiled down gut reaction to liberals and conservatives in modern times is that liberals are naive cowards, and conservatives are evil soulless shells. Although it's becoming far less true as both sides are stealing the worst attributes of each other. Pretty soon they will become an amalgam of the worst possible everything.

It tends to go for their supporters as well. I don't want either bloated rotting side of the political spectrum representing me, and I can't believe anyone would hitch their wagon to what has become of liberals and conservatives in this country.

reply to post by Skyfloating

Sometimes I wonder whether these extreme polarities are the results of hegelian social engineering.

Unlikely. Life experiences seem to be the main reason for political differences. And when I say "life experiences" so much more is obviously meant. Experiences eventually become 'encoded' in our genes, producing slightly different types of people down the evolutionary line. Some people become extroverts, others, introverts. Research has shown that these personality differences are enough to determine significant differences in how we vote and what we support.

Do political forces manipulate these natural processes? It's plausible. It's virtually impossible to prove, since philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives, atheists and theists, creationists and darwinists, don't seem to be made up. If there is an amorphous party behind all of this, the natural question arises of how? Disagreement seems to be a natural part of the human experience. No?

On the other hand, a part of me feels that society is contrived. Perhaps the way things appear is just a process? Does consciousness exist? Is near death experiences, occultism, remote viewing, telekenesis, telepathy, etc all just nonsense? Or is the doubt and skepticism which underlies scientific inquiry fundamentally different from the faith/trust that underlies a successful occultic procedure, or a simple heartfelt prayer? And then you throw into the loop bizarre things like Freemasonry, and its place in pretty much erecting the modern industrial order; and weirdest to me, anyways, are the occult themed ultra elite secret societies at ultra elite universities which recruit only the cream of the freshman crop every year.

I'm generally skeptical about things, but this is a little strange, is it not? I know a thing or two about Kabbalah, Alchemy/Hermeticism, etc, and I know the theory of it all, though unproven, isn't exactly illogical. It's not as silly as harry potter, etc represent it. There's a logic and method to it. That societies elite, people who eventually go on to places of power in business, finance, and government, are often members of such societies, one does naturally wonder: how do these societies and their interests influence what they invest in? What they support, and what policies they endorse? Or is it just the silly college nonsense that movies, and members of those societies would have us "laymen" think?

I don't know. Perhaps their interests in promoting physicalism as a plausible scientific theory will help get rid of social complications like the "theisms", or at least their fundamentalist versions. Since consciousness probably exists (occultism being a method to demonstrate it's existence, I imagine; and these elite societies seem to be aware of that, as the symbolism and names imply), the end game would be a scientifically oriented "spiritual darwinism", a resurgent paganism, of a sort.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I think this makes quite some sense. Would it be a false logical conclusion to say; In an ideal world everyone would be conservative, because they would be happy and content with their life in the present and see no need for change? No need to complicate things, if it aint broke dont try and fix it?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Conservatives value Freedom at the expense of Equality.
Liberals value Equality at the expense of Freedom.

That is the core, in the most basic terms.

Freedom and Equality are at odds with each other. Both are valuable and both are needed in society, but to achieve dominance in one, you loose the other entirely.

You cannot be totally Free and still be Equal.
You cannot be totally Equal and still be Free.

How much of one you are willing to give up in order to dominate the other is how far right or left you are individually.

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD


I was going to agree with you and I think that was a very apt explanation but then I started thinking about equality and I realized just how easily the liberal view can be manipulated with this mythical idea. Is equality even real? Is freedom? I feel freedom to be something tangible while equality is a carrot on a stick dangled in front of idealist (hated word in this topic but appropriate).

I mean really all well wishing aside are we all equal? Sure we want to be treated equally but to think that somehow we can all be made equal is a dangerous delusion. I think schools are a great example of this and children suffer because adults try to make everyone equal rather than encouraging a persons unique qualities to guide them down the path best suited for them we have instead encouraged mediocrity so that we can all pass as equals.

Another thought from your post and thinking about equality that came to mind was the old line about communism spreading poverty equally.