A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
In all practical situations, it's human intent that uses the divine to bolster it's authority, regardless of whatever the ideal claims it should be. Effectively, this comment is describing nothing that isn't already omnipresent. You can use whatever iconography you want to describe it, but all societies contain a symbolic order - i.e. the "authority" in the "appeal to authority".
Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
"Conservatives" love to pretend that their values have some long lineage, yet you don't have to turn the clock back more than a few hundred years to contradict them. Modern conservatism seems to be characterized by angst and fetishization over recently lost values, say from 50-100 years ago. Conservative women, in particular, tend to get amusingly hysterical about a perceived loss of values in the present. I suppose it makes sense, for women, promiscuity is linked to negative status in these systems. If you've sublimated all your desires in the name of status farming you are effectively ego invested in the very repressive nature of the values themselves.
Of course, liberals are just as bad. Laughably absurd on so many levels: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26830383
Civilized society requires orders and classes
Varying ranks and order form naturally in heterogenous collections, once criterium are specified. Even in societies where the explicit message is about equality; implicitly everyone knows it's just lip service.
Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason;
and Society must alter slowly.
I don't always jerk off over freedom, but when I do, I demand for it to be curbed in my very next statement.
Freedom can't exist in any absolute sense of the word. Also, fun fact: it's illegal to smoke cigarettes on the beach in several states of the "Land of the Free".
It is a relationship. A hierarchy. That preceded me. Therefore that has seniority. Therefore that carries more weight than I do. Therefore it may have things to teach me that I do not yet know.
It is, however, a very special relationship, in that I can join with It, by giving myself up to It.
So if i live in a third world shit hole i should blindly submit to the order, regardless of how inept it shows itself to be.
Am I the only one that finds the fact that what is now considered conservatism is actually a shining example of liberalism? ... Funny how this rhetoric is almost unanimously used by contemporary conservatives, at least those Americans who self identify as such.
Because politics is effectively memetic cheerleading. Most systems only differ in the choice of superficial ideas used to justify the mechanisms of control anyway.
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.