Anyone who has for very long been a conservative – let alone a reactionary – will find himself from time to time buffeted about by some acquaintance who is in the grip of a physiological syndrome endemic among liberals:
Rebellion → dysfunction → weakness → fear → anger → hate → dysfunction …
As it happens, my family and I have over the last few days been weathering a barrage of slings and arrows hurled by a few outraged liberals, on account of our extremely mild but public utterances of ritually impure ruminations on the latest waves of innovation in public policy. It’s painful, and above all tiresome. But one grows accustomed to it, over time. Until the Great Awakening, there will be no alternative.
Zippy Catholic succinctly and precisely explains the source and basis of liberal hate in three short posts, which should be read in the following order:
Sunshine Mary tries to answer the question: Why do feminists tend to be emotionally volatile, obsessive, violent, and hysterical? Her discussion applies equally to liberals of all sorts.
At root, I think it boils down to the fact that liberals are willful: they want what they want, goddammit. But reality is what it is, and it enforces its order upon us with overwhelming, relentless, inexhaustible, terrible power; so that unless we want and do what is proper for us under the order of being, we find ourselves at war with it – and, of course, losing. And this is the predicament in which liberals, or moderns, or inveterate sinners – any of these terms appose – find themselves: their wills are at war with reality, and they are losing.
Disputing the order of being – let’s just call it the Logos – does not *necessarily* result in poor fit of behavior to the world, but it does make such maladaptation virtually certain. Maladaptation is just another word for malady: disease, vitiation, weakness. To be at war with the order of being sooner or later involves war even with one’s own body. Liberals cannot but feel their philosophical and – to the extent their philosophy is carried into practice – physiological weakness. The emotional reaction to this apprehension of their weakness is anxiety. Anxiety is generalized fear, without a particular focus. In moments of particular stress caused by a perceived threat to them, or to their view of things, anxiety focuses and intensifies, and is felt as fear. When a particular threat is recalcitrant or acute, fear can blossom quickly into fight-or-flight: into panic, or rage.
We are all sinners, and so disagree more or less with our Lord, the Logos. So we are all somewhat subject to this dynamic. The difference between liberal or modern sinners on the one hand, and traditional or religious sinners on the other, is that the latter see and agree with the supremacy of the order of being (indeed, rejoice in it, as being both the source and basis of their very existence, and of all that is good), and think that they ought to order their lives in obedience thereto, whereas the former disagree with the order of being, even going so far as to insist that there is no such thing, outside themselves.
Those of us who are religious can understand ourselves as basically loyal to our Lord and Captain, and to his cosmos. Lousy soldiers we may be, disobedient, lazy, even often AWOL. But we can be confident that so long as we renew our pledge of loyalty, and put in our time in the brig when we have offended against his ordinances, we are welcome back into his ranks, and are never therefore wholly alone: never comfortless, never hopelessly lost.
Liberals feel themselves hopelessly alone, lost, doomed; for they have rejected the Logos and his cosmos. They are, not lousy loyal soldiers, but enemy soldiers; indeed, traitors. And, because they are themselves instants of the Logos, that can exist and function only insofar as they are in harmony with him, they cannot but feel their enmity with him, deep down; and, so, cannot but feel the weakness at their root, their malady, their disease.
They willfully disorder themselves. This weakens them. They feel this weakness, and so they are afraid. This makes them prone to anger. The anger expresses itself as hate. And hatred cannot rest until it has destroyed its object. But because the cosmos of the Logos is unconquerable, hatred thereof cannot ever end; so it prevents learning. It locks incorrigible liberals into their antagonism with reality. So their dysfunction compounds. It’s a vicious cycle.
We argue whether the disorder began with the Enlightenment, or the Reformation, with Ockham, or with the Cathari, or the Gnostics, or the Sophists. But really it goes all the way back, through Babel, to Eden.
 From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
Greek kosmos “order, good order, orderly arrangement,” a word with several main senses rooted in those notions: The verb kosmein meant generally “to dispose, prepare,” but especially “to order and arrange (troops for battle), to set (an army) in array;” also “to establish (a government or regime);” “to deck, adorn, equip, dress” (especially of women). Thus kosmos had an important secondary sense of “ornaments of a woman’s dress, decoration” (cf. kosmokomes “dressing the hair”) as well as “the universe, the world.”
Pythagoras is said to have been the first to apply this word to “the universe,” perhaps originally meaning “the starry firmament,” but later it was extended to the whole physical world, including the earth. For specific reference to “the world of people,” the classical phrase was he oikoumene (ge) “the inhabited (earth).” Septuagint uses both kosmos and oikoumene. Kosmos also was used in Christian religious writing with a sense of “worldly life, this world (as opposed to the afterlife),” but the more frequent word for this was aion, literally “lifetime, age.”