If and when there is such a hatred. However, they recognize that politics sits one step lower, if you get my drift (see reply #11). And that's where Ryn and others come from. They would espouse a constitution for liberty whose order is between the chaos of anarchy and the tyranny of universalized democracy or any other such millenial Reichs. Politics as such is historical existence--as long as that may be--without the consummation of the ages implied by the annihilation of evil. And politics as such does not espouse human mortality for the sake of embracing an all equally valid, "autochthonous" cultures. It admits that human empire and universals are not coeval and will never share the same destiny.
Hopefully these clarifications are not already made pointless by the usual polemicist's grandstanding. I can always trust they don't need to be.
I do not believe in any human system. However, man has been given (first to Adam, then to Noah, then to Abraham, and finally at Sinai) a system from Heaven. This system in no way abolishes the historical nations of mankind, but it does deny that the nations/races have separate origins (apart from Adam) or that religion is a subjective cultural trait that springs from the "blood and soil."
As for the distinction between history and metaphysics, it all depends on whose ox is being gored. Today's anti-messianic "palaeoconservatives" for the most part belong to a church which until very recently claimed the right to rule the world. Why isn't this "messianism" or "chiliasm" or "millenialism?" What about the "period of peace" that "our lady of Fatima" has allegedly promised mankind? Is this not millenialism? Is this not messianism? I fail to see why placing the "messiah" in heaven and having him rule the world through human proxies is any more "spiritual" or "supernatural" or whatever than insisting that it is the Messiah's job to rule the world personally from Jerusalem. The refusal to address this--the condemnation of messianism while clinging to the church that taught a proxy messianism for so long--is nothing but hypocritical. Or at least, I hope you can see why I would interpret it as such. And how many "palaeos" who attack universal systems illogically turn right around and either worship the medieval Catholic utopian "theocracy" or even advocate a return to that "theocracy?" Why is it that I can't get a "palaeo" to deal with this blatant contradiction?
Is it just that you guys don't want the "neos" to rule the world because you want to rule it yourselves?
As for the other aspects of "palaeoconservatism," I actually subscribe to many of them myself. But I am by definition disqualified from being a "palaeo" because instead of chr*stianity as the hope of the world I believe it lies instead in an older (and therefore inherently more conservative) religion--a religion which everyone other than me insists on identifying with modernity, but which I (apparently alone) still interpret as patriarchs with tents full of concubines, pastoral shepherds offering animal sacrifices, King David sitting on his throne, and Yehoshu`a Bin Nun slicing through Canaanites at a rate that no medieval crusader could have equalled.
The insistence that the Jews and their supporters are inherently "modern" or "anti-traditional" or "subversive" or "corrosive of morality" infuriates me as nothing else does (especially when it involves certain homosexuals who think they have the right to look down on Jerry Falwell as "not a true conservative" because he doesn't hate Jews). I have speculated on what lies behind this thinking in some of the articles at my web site. But at any rate, if Catholics can condemn Protestantism for introducing modernism by abolishing the mass, then how much the more can Judaism make the same accusation against chr*stianity for replacing the literal sacrifices with a "mystical" one. If this was not the first step from G-d-centered, cultic religion to a "religion of pure ethics" then Catholics can shut their yaps about how all Protestants are liberals who don't know it.