Humility in ambition and appetites is taught by the Truth, as I know it, and that certainly negatives ideology.

I agree ideology can be used in a neutral sense. The reason I use the definition I gave (which may be poorly drawn and I’m happy for revision or refinement of it) is that “ideologue” (which certainly has negative connotation) cannot really have meaning under the neutral definition. Elsewise, it would simply derogate those who are committed to beliefs, irrespective of the nature of those beliefs or the actions they are then led to; which I don’t think either of us would accept.

And I’ll use circumspect from now on as precision in language has its own reward.

All the best.

I appreciate the discussion.

“traditions, values and worldview”, from

a body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

The latter being a definition of ideology. I hadn’t realized the term was insulting.

Do you believe that atheism springs unfounded from each individual atheist’s head? That there is no intellectual, philosophical or cultural history? And that on the other hand, every “proper manifestation” of conservatism is rooted in some geographical/cultural locus?

As a method of argument, you seem to be using this position both ways. You question the opinions of those who don’t share your religious/cultural history; and since I didn’t show sufficient agreement and deference to your statement, you assume I don’t have the appropriate cultural background. However, this is the internet; your ignorance of my religious background and education is, of course absolute; and your assumptions are incorrect.

But we should define The West. To me, it is that hi-bred culture of Greece, Rome and Christendom that animated Europe and all her colonial offspring for the past Twenty Five Hundred years or more. A desire to evade entangeling alliances should not blind us to our duty to preserve a Christian Europe if asked to do so. We would be poor children to desert our mother, Europe, from whom we derive out language, our faith and our legal system. As to others who would play the game of “let’s you and him fight,” The answer is, and should always be, no.

And no, these are not ideologies, unless one uses an invalid definition of ideology to simply mean a worldview.

I’m not “suspicious” of “those whose opinions do not arise from the proper religious point of view” since (1) I don’t even know what that means; and (2) rejecting the validity/correctness of a person’s viewpoint is not “suspicion.”

And, your post further illustrates the ignorance of the irreligious toward religion, Mr. Larison (who is Orthodox) and I would have quite significant disagreements on religious questions. So the notion that people must have “the proper religious point of view” to agree with him is rather silly; unless by proper you simply mean a Christian within the scope of orthodoxy (in the small “o”) sense. That is a rather broad swath of people.

“I am likewise suspicious of the seeming propensity of these European Rightists to be athiests, which means it is ideology and not the “permanent things” that animate them”

mean? Are the “permanent things” that apparently animate non-atheists not also ideologies? Or is this just the recurring theme of suspicion of those whose opinions do not arise from the proper religious point of view, that seems prevalent in discussions here?

One wonders if these war hawks who invoke “the West” have read Tolkein too many times.

To be succinct, Americans traditionally are averse to European conflicts which they saw first as emanating from imperial conflict and religion, and later from ideology. I think that animates much paleo thinking (and at least mine.)

Also, paleos are more sober and realistic about the dispute; reocgnizing that Israel has been a self-serving and violent actor as well as the various Arab terror groups. They also recognize that, contra the hysteria that even Ms. Mercer engages in, Israel faces no strategic threat from Hamas or Hezbollah (or Iran, for that matter) and is not in danger of eradication. Rather, they recognize her as having a large strategic military and economic advantage over all other states in the region. So, contra Ms. Mercer or Mr. Wilders (and I am likewise suspicious of the seeming propensity of these European Rightists to be athiests, which means it is ideology and not the “permanent things” that animate them) Israel’s is not a manichean conflict with radical Islam. It is simply a conflict over land and resources that has lasted decades and the actors have evolved to where a formerly Marxist, nationalist and secular enemy has becoming more Islamist. But none of that means we need to lose our senses in a misguided belief that Israel is engaged in a “battle for her life.”

And that’s why paleos are critical of our ME policy and unquestioning support of Israel. And that’s what Ms. Mercer can’t seem to understand.

And ironically, much of the Lebanese Maronite leadership cided with Hizbullah during the 2006 War and has/had concerns about the Siniora/Hariri alliance which is supported by the Saudis (much more intolerant of Christians than Hizbullah and Iran are) and which has also attracted some salafi/jihadi support.

The imperialist/interventionist/colonial views of the bloggers you mention (if one can use those tired words still) have little to do with a “defense of the West” as I would wish to see it. A true defense of the West is traditionalist and conservative – not into neocon social engineering – it is defensive – more about Lepanto or May 29, 1453 than Operation Iraqi Freedom or the GWOT.