SIXTH COLUMN

"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address: 6thColumn@6thcolumnagainstjihad.com.

Thursday, December 09, 2004

Why the Right Never Wins Over the Left in the Long Run

Ross Mackenzie: Needed: A renewed sense of service and sacrifice, townhall.com, November 18, 2004


Ross MacKenzie wrote recently: "Herewith some key policy recommendations for the second Bush administration now forming up - with emphasis on a biggie. . . ."

The title tipped me off that the Achilles' heel of the Right was about to be re-exposed, in the form of his "biggie," and sure enough, he belched a big one:

With the nation in by all accounts a protracted World War IV against jihadist terrorism, what is lacking is any sense of sacrifice. These days post-9/11 flags are broadly absent on cars and front porches; undermining any determination to win the war, the administration has told us repeatedly to go about our business as though little had changed.

But much has changed. We require a renewed sense of service and sacrifice. We also require a populace fully appreciative of the importance of the military, and knowing full well where additional manpower will come from should the need arise. The way to accomplish all that is through a new program of compulsory universal service with a front-end military component - one year, no exceptions. Now.


I know the following is a shameless plug, but I offer an explanation of why the Right wins only battles and never the war against the Left, and fights only holding actions with small, but steady, retreats: See Exposing the America's Fifth Column: Nazism, Communism, and Islam.

The Left has been extolling an ethics of self-sacrifice ever since Immanuel Kant secularized this religious concept in the 18th century. Don't be bamboozled by "sacrifice," either. It is not a good word. It means giving up something of greater value for something of lesser value, which is why "sacrifice" always "hurts." To the Left, this sacrifice is so good that anyone not sacrificing voluntarily must be physically forced, even killed, in order to achieve the needed self-sacrifice. And, if someone is sacrificing, there must be someone to collect the sacrifices. To viz and to wit, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, all of Islam, and scads of others.

Well, you really can't fight something if you believe in it deep down.

The Right believes in the ethics of self-sacrifice fully as much as the Left. The Right gets it from religion; the Left gets it from the secular. It really doesn't matter where it comes from because it is all the same. It is the very fuel of totalitarianism and all of its progenitors.

When Ross MacKenzie extols a need for sacrifice, he makes bed with the darkest of Nazis or Communists, and I'll bet he would be horrified to know that. For MacKenzie, the sacrifice comes from the youth who must be forced into servitude for some self-sacrificial goal of national service. Hitler said the same thing, as did Stalin, etc.

Does MacKenzie mean some good variant? He probably does not know what he means. He writes in Conservative-Speak, his own version of "feel good." But, I know what he means.

Do you recall the other name for involuntary servitude? It is SLAVERY. Establish the principle through national service or the draft, and it will spread if it is not stamped out. It cannot be contained.

So here is the Right sadly and maddeningly pairing off with the Left, to the same ends. The Left has been much more consistent, and they have been winning as a result. The Right mumbles and shuffles and tries to make it seem like they do not mean the same thing., but they do. Words and concepts mean things.

This is a major reason why America continues to perish by default. The ideology of the Left has long been dead as a crusade. We are adrift and pursuing the ideology of the Left by passive default. The Right tries to resist but never succeeds because it will not pick up the right weapons. As a result, it is only slowing the passive descent, now and then.

The opposite of self-sacrificial ethics is an ethics of egoism. Yes, indeed, I mean rational self-interest. Note the use of "rational." Religionists and post-Kantians have convinced many people that selfishness means the barbarity of Hitlers, etc. No, that is not what rational self-interest means, but it is what narcissism means.

Make the distinction, and reclaim the right to your ego, if you want to remain free.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home