Yes, Russell Kirk was opposed to all of them. You won't be surprised to learn why, but all of them will do their best to ignore what he (and Solzhenitsyn) have to say. "Diversity", my a**!
...“The Errors of Ideology” explores the ideologue’s outlook and disastrous policies. The ideologue, Kirk explains, “thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature.” This outlook and ideological construction of politics is what the conservative rejects.That "Christian God" thing is precisely what PJ Buchanan spoke about in connection with immigration, and that's why PJ Buchanan was run out of the 'polite Republican' party. It's something that the US Bishops ignore while they preach about 'helping the migrant' (and take umpty-million dollars from FedGov to 'help.')
Second, Kirk’s brief but illuminating reflection on “The Politics of T.S. Eliot” helps the reader understand more fully the conservative disposition. The life and writings of Eliot reveal the conservative’s distrust of “centralized power” in any form, be it under “capitalism” or “socialism” or any other ism. The destruction of ethics and theology by practical utilitarianism has caused the despotism of merciless and heartless politics.
We are told, repeatedly, to keep God and morality out of politics. Yet, as Eliot insisted, society is bound together by common religion and a common ethical outlook. Without the recovery of the ethics of kindness and compassion, rooted in the Christian God, Western society runs to its own destruction under “the cult of the colossal.”...
But it is the cornerstone, whether the Bishops, the NeoCons, the Pubbies, or the anti-Christian Democrats like it or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment