I always thought it would be difficult to imagine a period in which the West would be more adrift than the 1970s. Being a child at the time, I was spared consciousness of most of that miserable decade. Thus far, however, the second decade of the 2000s seems likely to give the 10 years that spawned Watergate, stagflation, the Carter presidency, the Oil Crisis, Idi Amin, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, Jim Jones, Pol Pot, the Red Brigades, and the Iranian Revolution (to name just a few of the star attractions) a serious run for its money as a byword for Western decline.


One everyday sign of this malaise is the fact that much of the West remains, as in the seventies, mired in what’s now called the Long Slump. And persistently unhealthy economies are usually symptomatic of an unwillingness to acknowledge deeper problems. Examples are most Western governments’ reluctance to accept that it’s game-over for the regulatory and welfare state as-we-knew-it, or to do something about the growing cancer of crony-capitalism.

Sometimes, however, an event occurs that highlights the more fundamental crises that bedevil a civilization. The rise of a movement as diabolical as ISIS, for instance, has surely underscored the bankruptcy of what might be called the sentimental humanitarian outlook that dominates so many contemporary shapers of the West’s cultural consensus.

Sentimental humanitarianism has several features. One is the mind-set that reduces evil to structural causes. “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains,” proclaimed Rousseau in his Du contrat socialFrom this, many concluded that evil would disappear if the right people were put in charge to change the structures.

Sentimental humanitarianism also assumes that all religions are more-or-less the same and, given the right conditions, will vacillate their way towards something as innocuous as today’s Church of England. But as a wise recently retired pope once wrote, a major failure of imagination since the 1960s has been the disinclination to concede that thereare “sick and distorted forms of religion.”

Despite its claims to take the mind seriously, sentimental humanitarianism is also rather “uncomfortable” (to use classic sentimental humanitarian language) with any substantive understanding of reason. It tends to reduce most debates to exchanges of feelings. You know you’re dealing with a sentimental humanitarian whenever someone responds to arguments with expressions such as “Well, I just feel…” or “You can’t say that,” or (the ultimate trump-card) “That’s hurtful.”

read more:

http://spectator.org/articles/60368/our-sentimental-humanitarian-age

Views: 415

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

no argument with the article.. but throughout reading it I kept thinking about the 80s, 90s, and 2000s decades and what were the 'conservatives' doing??.

some things I remember along the 'where is my culture' lines is;

. a city (Austin) that ridiculed the whole concept of having principles - would literally laugh at the word principles in use... and very few were challenging this.

. the phrase 'It is what it is.' may have become the most destructive attitude and overused phrase ever (maybe closely challenged by 'lesser of two evils'). Where have the 'conservatives' been challenging this?? My experiences say they've been chanting it too, with very very few challenging it.

. the politically correct effect.. where were the 'conservatives' challenging this ramping up of oppression of thought and censorship over all 3 of those decades?? Very few refused to honor such foolishness, more were likely joining in on the wrong side.

the diversity 'training'... who dared ever challenge that??  Very few..

... just a few of the things that came to mind while reading this article. Things growing in our culture that were obvious for decades -- but where were the 'conservatives' working against them?? Few and far between IMO. Sadly, even though the word 'incapable' doesn't apply, they/we weren't confronting the obvious evil growing in our country either.

commuting long hours! (urban sprawl) in the metro areas... dropping young children off at daycare at 6 a.m. grumpy and tired to pick up at 7 p.m. (now, tired and grumpy)  - an hour max if that with the family (and fast or processed foods)-  parents too - grumpy and tired. 

While this was daily life for the middle class AND their children, the "ball" was being moved.

How ironic to see this item this morning.  I was watching a movie called "Immortals", butchered Greek mythology. There's a scene where the king says "Can't we negotiate?" upon which the bad guy summarily beheads him.  A classic statement of the Liberal approach to dealing with evil.

their favorite words when you were trying to do a job:

"that is not my job"

"everbody does it"

"are you holier than though"

"Me first, me second and me third, and the rest can wait"

and just like Obama..."is not my fault, nobody told me"

Liberalism IS THE EVIL MAN!

wise words!  a world can't be run on feelings - the process automatically, keeps everyone from even wanting to think and then you start [thinking]. 

where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

(was listening to while reading... just for fun and kinda fits...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C1BCAgu2I8

It starts with being "politically correct" which distorts  or censors the truth. Being PC moves you from the logical basis to the emotional basis, which is self defeating. Go to get back to logic and the rational realm.

true...  you notice when attempting a conversation with a liberal, you ask them for their "thoughts" - but they only recite back what has been given (talking points) in opinion by one of the "leaders"...even if nothing they say makes sense.   so, then you comment:  yes, I'm aware, I've already read that in the news... I was asking what your own thoughts were on the subject...  but they have no thought other than that PC tag line stuff they've been told and repeat almost verbatim in kind.  So... sometimes you wonder if they are following the PC movement so closely, are they even allowed their own "emotions" anymore?  Seems if you get that far in, they just go hysterical on you.  Really, kind of sad.

Liberals are spoiled children that never grew up. For several years we have watched as our children were taught at school and on TV  to go home and reprimand their parents for smoking, not being green enough, serving the wrong food, etc. the problem is acting on peoples white quilt the parents allowed this attitude to prevail. Now those same children are running our government thanks to Obama being elected. If there is a adult any where in the Obama administration they have been scolded and told to shut up!  

Television has been & continues to corrupt our culture!
I have observed TV since 1950 when it was a decent, respectful and informative mediam! It has turned into trash which addresses the lowest common denominator decades ago! (except for select programs.) TV insults my intelligence and anyone that spends much time watching it is not very intelligent!
I have not had Television in my home for three years!
Join a Tea Party and help us take back our country from the New York TV and Hollywood communists!

Earth's population has been in decline, or should I say, on a dwindling spiral for a very long time. Respite only comes with the occasional appearance of a new religion having affirmations of the old while dispensing new understandings. That seems to be the case with Bahá'í and Scientology, both are today's meeting grounds for the soul and its possible redemption...Semper Fi Nam 66-67 

Liberals are capable of fighting their definition of Evil~~They consider the NRA, Tea Party, anti abortion crowd, Fox News, and those gun and bible clinger's~~Evil~~ Communists, Fascists, Muslim fanatics~~not so much ! 

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Gary VarvelPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

ALERT ALERT

Gohmert: Dems Will Drag Out Impeachment — Try To Get ‘Best Socialist’ Nominated For President

During an appearance on Huntsville, AL radio’s WVNN on Thursday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) offered his best assessment of what House Democrats were trying to accomplish with their impeachment efforts.

Gohmert told WVNN’s “The Jeff Poor Show” impeachment could tie up the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign efforts but predicted Democrats would use the occasion to nominate “the best socialist” they can.

“They would lose in the Senate,” Gohmert said on impeachment. “And besides that, the entire time it was on trial in the Senate, the Democrats who are running for president wouldn’t be allowed to campaign. That’s in the Constitution. They wouldn’t be able to campaign. I just can’t imagine them wanting to do that because if they send it to the Senate, they have now perfectly set up the scenario of 1996, where they will reassure Donald Trump is reelected as president. They don’t want to do that. They’re probably going to drag this thing out as long as they possibly can … through Iowa, through primaries — try to get the best socialist they can to be nominated.”

“Then just end up and say, ‘Now we’re close enough to the general election. We’ve thrown mud at the president through the House,’” he continued. “What they’re really doing — they’re using taxpayer funds to campaign against Trump. That’s all this is — a campaign fund that taxpayers are paying for in order to try to throw mud at the president. I’ll be surprised if they have that vote, but I can’t imagine they want to set up this president for reelection by having a trial in the Senate where they lose.”

Veteran's Day Tribute

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service