Liberals Invert Religious Good

For liberals, the key to religion is to simply interpret it so that it appears to reinforce liberal ideals. Eventually, most liberals realize this doesn't work as well as simply discarding religion altogether and mocking it instead.

Many secular Conservatives reject Christianity because they believe it is what liberals claim it to be. In reality, liberal Christianity is the opposite of the good and purposefully inverts traditional values.

"The New testament... gives us a pretty clear hint of what a fully Christian society would be like. Perhaps it gives us more than we can take. It tells us that there are to be no passengers or parasites: if man does not work, he ought not to eat. Everyone one is to work with his own hands, and what is more, every one's work is to produce something good: there will be no manufacture of silly luxuries and then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them."

C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity," p. 84

Who do we find most opposed to conservative values? Liberal politicians, bankers, lawyers, and the large underclass of citizens dependent on government entitlements/handouts. That is, the same people who make their living as "passengers and parasites." They oppose conservative and religious values because those values are directly opposed to the destructive ways they earn a living. Those at the top skim a far better living via their parasitic behavior than they could through contributing. When public opinion begins to become aroused against their parasitic and destructive behavior, those who benefit the most make sure to redirect it towards anger and envy of "rich businessmen" - the class of wealthy who did not necessarily earn their living via parasitic behavior, but may have actually provided great material help to society.

Liberalism both enables and reinforces parasitic behavior, corrupting and attacking good behavior.  The parasites are very good at serving their self-interest, but are very harmful to a healthy society. Eventually their behavior will destroy society.

Every Great Tradition is Spiritual

All good traditions have a material and spiritual purpose. The material purpose is evident in the utilitarian good it serves in this life.  Good traditions are so important because the wisest among us have have recognized traditions that bring us closest to the greatest good in this life.

More important and more primary though is the spiritual purpose. The higher-purpose which lies above and beyond the materially visible plane is the most important purpose. This is not an arbitrary judgement, but a law of reality. The spiritual purpose is the root and provides the material world its organization and purpose. The material world would not exist without the spiritual root. 

A good tradition does not place the two purposes in contradiction, but reinforces both. The material and spiritual good may not be apparent to most people, who approach things from selfishness (or sin), but it is for great leaders to demonstrate and show the importance and goodness of traditions.

Absurdity of Death at Old Age

Death at the end of a long-life does not appear to serve the best utilitarian purpose. Why is one to die at the end of a long-life, when one has accumulated the most knowledge, the most wisdom. Essentially when one could be the most useful to society's health, understanding and long-term well-being is when one perishes.

There may seem to be an exception: that where the brain decays and so the elderly lose their wisdom. However, this is just a symptom of bodily and material decay. It still leaves the apparent absurdity with regards to why the material body, in all its parts, must decay when one is the most wise and experienced.

Media appears to be celebrating youth and even emphasizing the excesses of its stupidity as an inverse of this. Veneration of elders no longer has its appeal. This is a mistake and a sign of decay. The reason for this inversion is in two parts with one origin. First, we reject the possibility of truth: if nothing is real, it does not matter what the elders know. Second, we believe at death lies nothingness: out of fear, people hide from old age and want to ignore it.

The secular conservative recognizes the importance of the elderly and can only possibly account for death as an absurd and tragic loss. The mainstream modern takes it a step further into Nihilism and entirely renounces the possibility of truth, hiding in fear from old age.

There is one more possibility, but it is the least accepted in the channels of mainstream discourse. That is the possibility that there is a fundamental religious truth of some kind which accepts an after-life. Only here does the death of the most wise lose its apparent absurdity. Only here does the conservative's veneration for the elderly gain its more important meaning: the elderly, being closest to death, are not only the most experienced and wise, but are also the closest to being united with truth. That is, a higher spiritual meaning and root behind veneration of the elderly.

Seeking God is Coherence

Secular conservatives support good because of preference and utilitarian benefit. For example, they may not like to steal, may not want to be stolen from, and may realize stealing is harmful to a safe and organized society.

They oppose this to liberalism which supports understanding for and lighter-punishment of those who steal in addition to supporting stealing via redistribution on a national and global scale. Liberals will either not act rationally in this regard, attempt to call the facts prejudice and therefore necessary to ignore, or even not see the necessary benefit a safe and organized society. They will even attack that society as unjust and intrinsically bad.

Without reference to a higher organizing principle and reality, secular conservatives have no way of truly opposing liberals. The ideal of an organized society will be attacked by the left. The secular conservative's preference will be attacked - because many do not accept this preference. The secular conservative has a cultural and genetic predisposition favoring that type of society, but to assert such a society would require homogeneity. Even then, he has no justification outside preference for a certain type of society. There is no universal foundation or principle. Telling a stranger not to steal from you is only asserting your desire directly opposing his. Secular conservatives have no reason for their neighbors not to steal than selfish preference. We are left with nothing but a society built on the fragile structure of clashing wholly-selfish interests constantly opposed.

Societal structure does not originate from such a foundation though. The current state is but the decaying ruin of an older impetus towards a far greater coherence and purpose. The desire for organized society and the purpose of its foundation lies far beyond that of purely materialistic self-interests.

This fundamental desire of western man toward a high-level of societal origination originates in a yearning for something greater, a reflection of the highest ideals demonstrated in earthly existence. That is a reflection specifically of higher spiritual realities that come from above material existence and show us what is eternally true. The highest and best form of society is one where earthly existence is organized from above.

Subverting Society through Delayed Marriage

A fundamental goal of the "new age" and liberals is destroy the family.

Part of this was the sexual revolution. In previous times sexual urges could be sanctified and made holy in the familial union.

Knowing that the majority population is weak-willed and would not delay gratification of sexual urges - even if they believed it was the right thing to do - the left benefited from the median age of marriage constantly moving higher. Mutually reinforcing was the doubt seeded in regards to the necessity of waiting until marriage. Doubt destroys belief and undermines the foundation of strength. At some point, even the feeling of guilt was tossed aside and there was no reason not to give into sexual urges.

Now we have the results: Sex is no longer viewed as a holy union sanctified towards the creation of family, children, and providing reflection of a higher order in our world. Now it is degraded to a fundamentally unfulfilling act with no higher purpose than to temporarily satisfy urges. It is an act that is no longer coherent to purpose in life. Rationalizing sex as only useful for naturual procreation - we eventually rejected even this purpose! We claimed "good" for our pursuit of pleasure for its own sake and with no higher purpose. 

When it has no higher purpose, there is no rational reason to prefer sex over more intense drugs to satisfy those unending desires. There is no rational reason to not install a machine in the brain which provides the necessary stimuli at the push of a button. The only argument of society against such advances is that it makes for poor workers - but the left can not provide a moral reason not to. No reason linked to a higher purpose in life.

Indeed, reducing sex in such a way also removes any logical reason for marriage. There is no good argument against simply reducing sex to a commodity via prostitution. More profoundly, sex no longer makes sense. It is an incoherent act except where humans are reduced to the status of animal. It degrades us to status below animal - for even nature's material purpose we have subverted. Modern society reduces us all to subhumans.

Equality is Nothingness

One of the most important goals of modern society is equality.

This comes in three forms:

1. Equality as truth (everyone is totally equal)
2. Equality in practice (everyone must be treated as if they are equal)
3. Equality as goal (everyone must and should be equal)

The first is very common, but the most obviously not-true. Even the common men and women who claim to believe this principle will acknowledge certain children as more intelligent, less intelligent, more capable at athletics, etc. Even Hobbes admits the fundamental flaw of this statement while attempting to apologize for and excuse it:

Though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself. 

Hobbes admits that all men are not equal, instead we learn they are "roughly equivalent." His excuse for acting as if equality is real: that should two unite against one, they can defeat that one. Should they use deceit and lies, they may overcome the stronger. We learn from Hobbes the beginnings a modern double-speak: individuals are not equal, but we should treat them as such because the weaker may use immoral tactics against the strong. The weaker may unite to murder their betters. Was this not the root of tactics used in both the Russian and French revolutions? The idea we see here is that even though equality does not truly exist, it may be forced and enforced through the use of violence - through immorality. It is simply assumed that equality is a good thing, so good that it must be sought by any means necessary. The ends claim to justify the means without fully explaining why those ends are worth such terrible means.

We learn this idea of Hobbes - at the root of much modern thought - is based on nothing more than the idea that "people are about the same because the weaker might be able to murder the stronger, given certain variables in the weaker's favor." Within his own argument for equality Hobbes must admit the real existence of inequality - but with the cruel promise that it may be overcome. We see the truth now: Hobbes has already assumed equality as good, despite inequality existing naturally, and must make excuses for us to act as if equality is more than mere idealism.

Seeing equality now as it really is: even by the proponent's own words that equality is not reality, but instead an ideal of the new age. Because it is assumed as an ideal, the modern then justifies parts 2 and 3 above: that we should pretend as if equality is real in practice, and where equality does not exist we must move towards making things equal - because equality is good. Circularity!

Let us attack the root of the problem then: is equality good? No! Because equality is a contradiction in itself. To make two things truly equal is to eliminate differentiation and therefore to destroy the differentiated things. We have already learned from Hobbes, the French and the Bolsheiks that equality is fundamentally based on violence. Without destruction and violence the advocate for equality can not even pretend that equality exists! Violence is totally essential to equality - but do they truly know what they are destroying for? Do they realize that in temporarily restraining themselves to only destroy the most high they are not all the way to their goal? Certainly that is all the slightly-lower care for, to destroy the most high so that they may feel elevated. Yet in doing so they are taking the place of the high. They are next in line to be destroyed. For equality, the admitted high goal of moderns, is not settled on today's fixed limitation on how high things are allowed to go. No, it is a total equality - eventually all must be made equal. In practice, this is a relative limitation - always focused on removing what is currently higher, but never satisfied. This total equality is total destruction, total leveling, elimination of all higher forms. The pulling up of all lower forms. It is so much easier to pull down the higher through destruction than to pull up the lower - for the lower is fixed by nature and may not go higher except in pretending. The higher though may always be destroyed - and this was Hobbes insight. Equality may be treated as if it were real because it is possible bring higher to a lower state by violence towards the higher. This massive leveling only leads to one place: the goal of equality for it should be and must be is nothing more, at root, than advocating for nothingness. No-thing may be different from another - because for even one-thing to be different defeats the goal of equality!

So we see why God had to be the first to go - for he was the most high. Before the aristocracy could be overthrown, first God must be overthrown - because all high things begin and descend from God. When the ultimate goal is to utterly and totally pull-down and level all things for equality, one must start at the top. The top, here like the human head, being from which all lesser things are directed must first be removed before equality can even begin. For if God created all things and the ultimate goal is a destruction of all things through the total leveling of equality, God must be destroyed and His creation follows. With God's death, the modern world has absolutely no direction but modern goals like "equality." We have see this equality for what it truly is and so we see why it was so important to lob the head off of humanity. Now that we have no head, no organizing or directly purpose, we must naturally begin tumbling down towards this goal which permeates everything in modern life: of equality for it must and should be.

Universal Acceptance is Ultimate Denial

By "universal acceptance" I am referring to the idea of accepting everything as good. The idea that all choices, ideas, opinions and philosophies should and need to be accepted. A truly liberal, open-mindedness in complete acceptance.

Liberals like this idea. The idea that no individual can be judged as right or wrong for their beliefs, choices, or actions. Liberals think this sounds very good. Very politically correct. All-embracing, all accepting.

The problem is that, in reality, it is a philosophy of truth denial. It is Nihilism - barely disguised. For to accept all-things means to deny from any-thing the possibility of ultimate truth. To accept bad as equal to good is to effectively deny good.

This is problem at the root of many modern euphemisms: equality, open-mindedness, acceptance. They are in fact the opposite of what they claim to be. They effectively destroy good through denial while pretending to create more of it through acceptance.