More reviews

My book has received a couple additional reviews, one in the Longview (East Texas) News-Journal, and one in a Hungarian weblog, Konzervativ tea-kor (the name seems to have something to do with tea).

The latter maintains the now-established tradition of reviews in languages very few English-speakers understand. An online translation service gives the following rendition (the translation suddenly improves where I substitute the English original for a text the writer is quoting):

This time definitely ditcher I gotta. Innuendo the Conservatoire and Reaction happens Dear and sympathize pinko and flickers fellow citizen trim referenced , that what behind the times provincialis the Hungarian rightist bezzeg abroad not komcsiznak , the libsiket nor fikazzak na but us reactive also only the bottom jutott , etcetera , etcetera.

This time means plus the Catholic and meghozza tradicionalista or rightist Catholic grown-up fejjel reverted James Kalb his book , THE liberalness despotism. THE book-maker the legmodernebb country , everything progress in its sleep poignancy mikent the similar texts his book penman Miller Thomas ( total text here you are ) Lubricates Minogue ( total text here ). True , Miller megiscsak Hungarian it had been Minogue plus vain Oakeshott disciple and progeny the LSE n , only one Australian. But this time one real mainstream stateside wrote such nastiness , whose honlapjarol many other writing also elolvashatjak the unbeliever ballerek.

If the many writing essay recapitulate , then that have to tell : the liberals and pinko ( the modern United States genital work odds e two amidst , and questionable , that In Hungary meritorious e ) reviewing too one , the szamunkra also unconsidered articular thought about floor who , the conventionality and the transcendent connection. THE conventionality innuendo readier we are the practical knowledge , the assaying – luck studies result sciences restrict. However the conventionality contains untold not practical , never who not he tried knowledge also , than the Bible , Plateaux , Aristotelian , etc. THE conventionality and subsistence not merely the practical effectualness certify , if this supposes , then the rightist and the Rorty – or Putnam – sort pragmatizmus , or Machiavellian amidst almost nothing odds not bide. Marpedig the differences insisted—good ditchers. THE conventionality transcendental with the elements kerdeseket work up the szamunkra , torturous perplexusok to the front predicate—amiktol the modern rationally , she’s ready valaszaikkal spare us. These the transcendental sciences—while no one , or only very less tudtak these suitably elni—voltage allnak the practice , and with this untangle us the practice mokuskerekebol Chesterton kepevel : the wheel measureless , but restricted ) THE modern reject everything , that can’t was it worth , and only that regard got it , that monitor , they are planning and dominates can. THE practical knowledge next to the transcendent also atlathatatlanul darksome “zavaros” the glamoury wit polishes to him , i.e. terrific.

THE liberalness despotism not merely the tudatipar , about it profusely irtak already masok , but the , that believed the with people , only yourself my desires the satisfactions the important , and nothing nor stands above them or on them without , that tisztelniuk ought , and that important can be even the personal their existance szempontjabol also. That way the liberal locks the man the immanency troll , where truly readily manipulalhato. THE liberalness manumission to that endeavour , that nothing respectable , hole-and-corner ne should I stay.

Foretaste the Kalb cimado in her study initial sorai , what also the nemeuropaiertelembenvett rightist :

“The disappearance of the radical left is a sign that in principle it has reached its attainable goals. While no one admits it, what we see around us is the victory of the Revolution.

Politics today is radically secularist and antiparticularist. It aims to dissolve what is left of traditional society and construct a universal form of human association that will constitute a technically rational system for the equal satisfaction of desire. Religion is to be banished from public life, ethnic and gender distinctions abolished, and a worldwide order established, based on world markets and trans-national bureaucracies, that is to override local differences in the name of human rights, international economic development, and collective security.

Contemporary liberalism expresses and supports that new order. Not all members of our ruling elites adhere to liberalism, and it draws support from outsiders as well. However, our elites determine its content, and it promotes their interests. It sets the terms of discussion, defines what is considered progress, and establishes the general principles of cooperation upon which our elites base their claim to rule.

Supporters of the new order see it as historically and morally necessary, and thus as compulsory regardless of established views and habits. Since modern governments claim to base themselves on consent, the public must be brought to accept it. Managing opinion and keeping perspectives that oppose fundamental public policies out of mainstream discussion have therefore become basic to statecraft.

Genuine opposition comes not from the left but from reactionary and restorationist groups that exclude themselves from respectable politics by rejecting liberalism and the left. Today’s dissidents are particularist—traditionalist, fundamentalist, populist, or nationalist. Beyond that, they are antisecularist and antihedonist. They reject a system of politics that bases social order on human desire, because they reject the view that lies behind it, that men make morality for their own purposes.

Today all things are justified on the grounds that they help men get what they want. Those who recognize an authority superior to human purposes are seen as dangerous bigots who want to oppress others in the name of some sect or arbitrary principle. As a consequence, fundamental political discussion no longer exists. Politics today is divided between an outlook that presents itself as rational and this-worldly, and absolutely dominates public discussion, and a variety of dissident views that speak for goods higher than human desire but are unable to make effective their substantial underlying support. The conflict is never discussed seriously since it is considered resolved; the ruling liberal view is accepted as indisputable, while dissent is considered confused or worse.

The dominant outlook believes itself peculiarly tolerant and all-inclusive. It is not. The error results from a misconception of politics and morality that is essential to liberalism. Liberalism claims to leave religious and moral issues, at least those it identifies as personal, to individual judgment.”