Blight wing

There are two forms of conservatives today: those who submit to the order that exists like beaten men at the end of their energy, and those who rage against it but have no idea how to work with it.

Like most who choose radicalism in preference to compromise, the latter group tend to be completely uncontrolled. They rage at the world out of a fundamentalism of their own in which just about everyone is wrong, except the chosen few. This makes them impossible to work with. They also alienate everyone they meet.

On the other hand, the beaten conservatives don’t alienate anyone. They sound exactly like other politicians, except they do things like defend business against environmental legislation. Since these politicians resemble the leftist variant in all but what they seem to do for special interests, most people assume they are corrupt.

Conservatism suffers from one fundamental flaw: no one knows what it is. This is compounded by the fact that conservatism is several hundred thousand times more complex than liberalism. The idea of liberalism is simple: I should be able to do anything I want to, and none should be above me.

In contrast, conservatism is based on a complicated equation. We care about ends, not means; we look at consequences. This requires paying attention to the natural order that appears in patterns, not pure physical materials. That in turn requires appreciation for transcendent values, or those which rise above material. At that point, you’ve wrapped religion, philosophy, culture and wisdom into an inextricable ball. The result is a desire to conserve complex organic truths against the fanciful and divergent ideas of human individuals.

As a result, conservatives have no idea how to present themselves in public. That’s not quite true — the radicals do, although they’ve chosen a public image that drives away the public. Milktoasts don’t like going down this path because at some point someone will ask, “So aren’t they just liberals who defend finance and the military?” In all honesty, we have to answer yes, at this point.

On the flipside, the radicals can’t explain to the average person why what they want is important. They know what they want, and they make extreme statements, but they can’t say why. The result is that they are driven to increasingly symbolic and visual extremes in their imagery and get farther from any positive ideals.

The radicals think conservatives will never win elections because the sheeple will never face truth. The milktoasts thing conservatives will win elections if they just adopt enough liberal ideas to appeal to liberals. Both groups are wrong.

Instead, a simple and radical truth is staring us in the face: conservatism has an image crisis.

The best part of the radicals is that we can spot them a mile away. Conservatives need this kind of brand: an ideology with cult power, that stands out from the rest, and show us a glimpse of another world we might like more than our status quo (think Lord of the Rings more than Gone With the Wind).

Combine this with the best part of the milktoasts, which is that they demand this airy ideology be tied to something pragmatic. In their view, ideology by itself is the domain of the leftist and has no relationship to reality.

This new conservative party would take from the social conservatives, the paleoconservatives, even the far-right, because all are related by a heritage: conservatism itself, or the idea of conserving complex things against the fanciful ideas of human individuals.

Unlike past conservative parties, it would not be fighting a controlled retreat but going on the offense, seeking to replace a dying system with something better.

At Amerika, we have tried to illustrate this type of better world we’d prefer. One based on consequences and organic wholes; on time-honored traditions, and eternally successful strategies that produce not just quantitative victories, but qualitative ones.

What would this future conservative world look like to you? Let ’em fly in the comments.

55 Responses to “Blight wing”

  1. Jason says:

    What a brilliant way to describe conservatism.

    I believe conservatism, practiced faithfully and under the guise of improving humanity, we’d end up heading towards a Star-Trekky future, rather than the final stop on the liberalism express: Idiocracy!

    It’s like conservatism needs a new name and a fancy Kony2012 video to fire up the masses into wanting self improvement. One thing that makes me sick about liberals is how they’re so big on helping others even when they have a ton of personal growth they could do. Improve yourself and hold yourself to a higher standard and naturally those around you will begin to question their own standards. If you have no standards, people around you will also lower theirs until everyone is a fat, balls-scratching, spitting in public, saying “Fuck” every third word, lazy dickhead collecting disability while playing DJ gigs at 39 for under the table cash at shitty hipster dives.

    • A. Realist says:

      “I believe conservatism…[is]…heading towards a Star-Trekky future, rather than the final stop on the liberalism express: Idiocracy!”

      That really sums it all up.

      Liberalism is about quantity and conservatism is about quality.

      Liberals want every person to be counted; conservatives see us as a body that needs to have a purpose as a collective organism.

    • slumlord says that

      “Conservatism is a belief in the objective truth. ”

      Brett Stevens says that

      “Conservative: realist.”

      Crow says

      “Leftism: Me.
      Rightism: It.”

      Which is right?

      The general consensus seems to be that leftism is based in the ego, and conservatism is based in the Id, and the objective natural world.

      This seems too obvious

      Why are so many people liberals?

      • Sun says:

        Most people here will say because it a) sounds good b) feels good.

        It is the opium of the masses.

      • Demonspawn says:

        Liberalism: Equality.
        Conservatism: Equity.

        Equality is failure because it punishes success and rewards failure.
        Equity is advancement because it rewards success and punishes failure.

        Liberalism is an inversion of the natural order.
        Conservatism IS the natural order.

      • A. Realist says:

        An alternative:

        Conservatism – reality is the eternal standard by which we judge ourselves.

        Liberalism – the acts of others are the temporary standard by which we judge ourselves.

        They are morally different philosophies.

    • Ryan says:

      excellent obsevervation of youth “culture” there,
      “If you have no standards, people around you will also lower theirs until everyone is a fat, balls-scratching, spitting in public, saying “Fuck” every third word, lazy dickhead collecting disability while playing DJ gigs at 39 for under the table cash at shitty hipster dives.”

  2. slumlord says:

    Conservatism suffers from one fundamental flaw: no one knows what it is.

    You’re wrong.

    Conservatism is a belief in the objective truth. Everything else is not conservatism.

  3. Ryan says:

    i think, to tie into mod=slavery’s question of “why people are liberal”, that the entire basis of liberalism’s appeal lies in the idea of “freedom”; locke and rousseau beating their drums. “freedom” needs to be overcome and replaced with “duty”. similar to Mr. Donovan’s “way of men”. the concept of freedom seems to cause stagnation and decadence. civilization stops being that expression of labor and struggle. it stops being this drive to preserve human dignity in an animal world, and becomes and END, rather than a MEANS. freedom makes the world into a big therapy session, wherein we can hide from our various forms of duty (screwing and raising children, protecting the “expression of labor”, and defending or seizing resources needed to preserve the aformentioned). that is why we have “invisible children” because life has become a big therapy session, wherein we can feel “good” making people free. conservatism, seems to me to be the natural order of things, as they always were since the times of brennus, cuchalain and homer. to call it conservatism is somewhat limiting, what we should call it is realism, or being realistic.

  4. lord locust says:

    this is all great, but remember the racialists are right, human Bio diversity is real. where does this fit in that So called star treky future? it doesn’t!! the collapse and final death of the western world cannot be stopped, only delayed, with even greater consequences. NO my friends we are not facing a conservative rebirth, but the very thoughts and ideas which will shape a new civilization, one founded on natural law, a cosmic order, based on reality, not false ideas. any civilization that is killed by, diversity, equality, and. multiculturalism, will not be founded on those same failed ideas the second time around.

    from the ashes of the west a stronger people will remain, the ethnic/racial civil wars, and genocide that is sure to follow the coming global economic collapse will only highlight racial differences. ignoring current trends, means ignoring reality. does this make it right? can we live with ourselves knowing that we must destroy our enemies to preserve our people, our families, what remains of us will not be pretty. but survive we will. it is the cosmic will of nature that will release our minds from thoughts of mercy, brotherhood, weaknesses which do not allow an advanced species to colonize the stars. the men of the west must pay for their treachery against the cosmic order, it is your own weakness that has allowed the ship of state to turn So dangerously off course. now the time is coming for that price to be paid, the fat to be cut from the body nation, battle lines drawn, and the earth to receive her pound of flesh.

    I take heart, that whatever may come, nature has chosen our people, a sort of final test of will to power, If you will. deny what you may, but there are those of us, who can’t wait to take that power and bring hell on earth to a reality for our enemies.

  5. Sun says:

    The problem is not the system but the people.

  6. Serious Questioner says:

    How would you describe someone like Bill Whittle of the Afterburner? Milktoast, paleoconservative or radical?

    His videos are always inspiring and aim to change the image misconceptions that the average person may have on Conservatives.

    “Why being a Conservative Sucks” video link:

    I wonder what is Mr. Steven’s opinion on Bill Whittle, who seems to be a nice, intelligent and eloquent individual. There are many similarities between Brett Stevens and Bill Whittle. Maybe Mr. Stevens could interview Mr. Whittle, that would be some great reading! I would gladly give up my Slayer cds just to see that happen.

  7. crow says:

    “What would this future conservative world look like to you?”

    The biggest obvious difference would have to do with the way people treat each other. And this would entail where the way they treat each other comes from.
    The USA has been the driving force behind what happens in the whole western world, for many years. What starts in the USA shows up everywhere, shortly afterwards.
    Let’s take PC, for example.
    PC modifies the way people naturally are, and makes them behave in ways they normally wouldn’t. You get a whole society giving the appearance of being something they are not.
    When you get enough people doing this, society, in its entirety, becomes one big fake. Every interaction becomes a sham, every transaction a con, every decision based upon a false premise. The result?

    The new conservatism would necessarily entail the outlawing of any manifestation of PC. Make fakery illegal. Difficult to achieve, probably, but easier than colonizing the distant stars.
    Make falsehood too expensive to indulge in, and reward honesty.
    Refuse to tolerate the untrue, the dishonest, the insincere.
    Demand respect be given, and returned, and enforce that demand.
    Use the schools to educate children in reasonable deportment. Teach honour. Instill self-discipline. Encourage behaviour that is genuine.

    Maybe none of this is actually achievable, when things have become so rotten, because, for one thing, where could you find teachers who could teach what they, themselves, do not know? A difficult vision, to be sure.

    But without the bulk of people responding genuinely to what is around them, in a way that makes sense, nothing else would do any good.

    We, here, expose ourselves to new ideas, new consciousnesses, new possibilities, new outlooks, because that is what interests us. But most people can not even identify the nature of what might be wrong, even though they may be aware that something is.

    Not a plan, for a new conservatism, then. Except to say, it is the individual that will make the difference, if there is ever going to be a difference. An individualism that entails individuals forgoing individualism for the greater good.
    Imagine it becoming the next ‘cool’ thing, to be honest!
    Imagine the next ‘coolest’ thing after that, being personal integrity.
    Responsibility, self-restraint…

    Who knows? Such concepts have become so far-out that youth may snap them up, just to be what youth always wants to be:

  8. Robert M says:

    Conservatism is the civic equivalent of greening the desert.

    The best Conservatism is the ‘Just Right’ goldilocks zone of civilisation where productivity and well being balance each other out.

    Just add water. Some will wait for the rain to come, others will be mostly proactive about it.. Either way we need water to dissolve individuals into the right solution.

    • A. Realist says:

      The balancing act idea is profound. We need some forward motion, but we need to check it or the tool commands the master. That’s really easy to have happen, which is why conservatives are so *hmm what’s the word?* conservative. We want to rein in the horse before it gets away from us.

  9. Like Ponyville.

    Identity, Parity, Unity, Tradition.

    The problem is not the system. The problem is not the people. The problem lies within the failure of the Right to offer a coherent vision based on the above four words.

    There are no citizens of Ponyville that do not have an identity.

    Every citizen of Ponyville has a distinct role drawn from innate ability and preserved through parity.

    All of Ponyville is united and bound by common national destiny.

    Every citizen of Ponyville celebrates this through tradition.

    My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is an analogy for the future west.

    Gravity lies in what does not appear to be serious

    • Locust says:

      More Pathetic weakness. There are no true men of the west, only children trying to figure out how to keep their toys and burgers. In a Global collapse, you will stand and fight like men, or die like the cowards you are.

      • Ted Swanson says:

        I don’t know whether the problem is the people the system or whatever, but I thought Buttercup’s vision is the clearest and least labored of all the comments in this whole thread.

        • crow says:

          Well yes, let’s all be five years old again.
          And live in equality-land, where everyone is magically friendly, and there are no enemies.
          Makes a lot of sense, when you’re five.
          It would be lovely, wouldn’t it?
          Unfortunately, there is this thing called ‘reality’ that sort-of spoils it.
          Still, you never know.
          Maybe all the bad guys out there will suddenly ‘get-it’.

          • Futurist Traditionalism: progress through the ideas of the past, and common sense ends-before-means thinking.

            Everypony words according to their innate talent, according to their caste (technology-enterprise/unicorn, agriculture/earthpony, defense and weather control/pegasi). The biological determinism and heritage of each class and caste of pony is celebrated.

            Deep ecology: the original conservative ideal is conservation of nature and culture together.

            Pegasi and Earth ponies are dedicated to maintaining the weather and land and conserving it for the better, often in cultural traditions (Winter Wrap Up)

            Radical honesty: with total realism, we can recognize the causes of our problems.

            The show is founded on the premise of being honest with oneself and others, each episode encapsulates a conflict created by dishonesty and disillusionment; The main antagonist of Season 2 “Discord” has no real power other than distracting people/ponies from what’s real “He makes you forget what’s important”.

            Paleoconservatism: traditional values, monarchism, caste and leadership by culture.

            Traditional values are enshrined in the show, despite it being neutered for television. The ponies have theatre, european architecture, celebrate christmas and agricultural festivals; Caste I’ve already touched on with the Unicorn/Flying pony/Earth pony divide and the division of labour accordingly; Equestria is ruled over a Sun Goddess/Female monarch who is genetically superior to them (Standing at twice the height of a normal pony and with cosmic powers); Everypony is led by a culture of striving to excel.

            Pony traditions:

            Winter Wrap Up (time honoured methods of caste based labour are celebrated and put into practise instead of using technology).
            Hearth’s Warmings Eve (a christmas analogy based around the idea of appreciating each others essential role granted by biological determinism, and the founding of Equestria as the unity of castes).
            Hurricane Competition (the pegasi ponies compete to see who can make the strongest hurricane. Traditional symbols, decor, and methods like a huge starting battle-horn are used).
            The running of the leaves – An autumn traditional race of the earth pony caste to shake the leaves from the trees.

            And on, and on.

            I have many articles on my blog. Please educate yourself further about the show, before I come and educate you.

      • By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe

    • Locust says:

      “The problem is not the system. The problem is not the people. The problem lies within the failure of the Right to offer a coherent vision based on the above four words.”

      The people are the system, the people allowed the system to become what it is today. Through inaction, the people condone this crap hole of a system. The People are weak, maybe not 200+ years ago, but you have grown soft, you lack vision, you lack nerve to take the battle to the enemy and destroy him, you fear death and the loss of your material junk, because you have no direction, no soul, your not a people at all. Just a herd of cattle, waiting for the slaughter.

      No we need to get back to reality. We need a Leader to tell the people what they need to do in order to survive. We need a new culture, new civilization, and in time a new people.

  10. Meow Mix says:

    Firstly, I don’t think long rants like the ones above about the end of the West and the coming future aristocracy or whatever is helping at this point. That is precisely the problem Brett was talking about. Radicals are often the most complacent because they can whine about how nothing is going right in the world, so why bother while it burns.

    Brett said it before and I’ll say it again: The entire American Right needs to rally around the Republicans. Since all the sites on the right of the screen (minus Larval Subjects obviously) get probably a collective total of some 1 million hits or so, that provides a pretty good chunk of potential voters. This allows us to make some basic checklists of vague but functional ideals we would all want in a Republican regime (not in any specific order):

    1. Common moral values
    2. Capitalism/economic freedom
    3. Ethnic nationalism
    4. Meritocracy
    5. Transcendence/religion
    6. Military industrial complex/military hegemony
    7. Discipline/war on obesity
    8. Sexual restraint.
    9. Adventure

    You could add a bunch more or modify these, but they are starting points that most conservatives can get on board with if they give up a few pet issues (the paleos can stop crying about military intervention and the angry nazis can give up on race obsessions).

    I should like to add my own caveat here: Multicultural ‘browning of America’ is inevitable and some in the GOP recognize this (Marco Rubio speaking in Spanish anyone?). Instead of falling into the trap of pandering to the liberal multicult ‘inclusion’ policy or reducing conservative minorities to tokens, I suggest a turning of tables: emphasize that the Right represents ‘real multiculturalism’- minorities not bathed in the light of victimhood, oppression, and handouts (I’m thinking Thomas Sowell or Michelle Malkin here). I’m going out on a limb here, but today the longing among most Americans for a return to ethnic roots is largely the product not of a resurgent tribalism but rather a result of the backlash against the loss of ethnic identity to capitalist globalism- McWorld if you will. This momentum could be harnessed- if America is the land of immigrants instead of the land of the dying WASP, then perhaps it is time to encourage everyone to ‘return to roots’, because such roots are mostly rightwing in origin. Is it not amusing that Hispanics are predominantly conservative but court the left because they like bed and breakfast during their stay? Is there potential here or would such flirtations lead to a Yugoslavia scenario?

    Now, as for brand, my only recommendation is in creating popular fiction that wouldn’t be overtly political, but would demonstrate ficitonal characters, worlds, or scenarios that have conservative values or ideals.

    • Time Curator 23 says:

      @ Meow Mix: That would not lead to balkanization, but would reverse the balkanization that is already taking place: the USA is already rather divided, but would be reunited by forming its population into various ethnocultures allied under the nation-state. Intentionally promoting a healthy and mostly non-violent ethno-nationalism within the USA would be far better than simply letting an unhealthy and mostly violent ethno-nationalism occur. IMHO.

      • Meow Mix says:

        Yes, I can see something perhaps developing along those lines. If everyone in the USA came to a sort of mutual agreement to embrace their ethnicity or return to a lost ethnicity without bashing other groups, and assuming that such a multiculturalism would be conservative in orientation, then it would be far less painful than the ethnomasochism and culture/race wars we have going on (yeah, like the recent one on TV I won’t bother dwelling on).

    • Sun says:

      The left naturally gives rise to the right.

      The right naturally gives rise to the left.

      Matter never disappears when it burns, only takes different shape.

      The collapse is an integral part of change.

    • A. Realist says:

      “Radicals are often the most complacent because they can whine about how nothing is going right in the world, so why bother while it burns.”

      That’s so dead on. Every time I observe the far left or far right, I’m amazed at how similar they are in this regard. It’s like there’s a third axis of political choice which is human psychology itself.

  11. Chesterbelloc says:

    Something akin to the Ron Paul model is our best bet for reviving a winning conservatism. Rather than squandering the energy of radical conservatives on futile attempts to use the (inherently leftist) federal government to ban pagans from having abortions or engaging in sodomy, let’s channel all that radical conservative energy into one thing: cutting back the state. If we can get the government out of our schools, out of our families, out of our private businesses, etc. then we will have a fighting chance to end the all-pervasive culture of political correctness and replace it with something in accord with natural law. It is also a lot easier to convince milquetoast conservatives to cut back on regulations for the sake of “small government” than it is to make them fight in the brutal disputes of the culture war.

    • A. Realist says:

      I think that gutting government so it is no longer a moral force is a good idea. However, going back to states’ rights is going to limit our ability to be a first-world superpower, which we need to be or we’re going to get invaded and conquered. Ron Paul doesn’t have a solution for that, but Rand Paul does. He wants to trash only the moral aspects of government and stay away from foreign policy and domestic economics. That is an electable platform. RP’s “1821 or bust” campaign is not.

      • Chesterbelloc says:

        How are we going to get invaded? We have nukes galore. Pax Americana may be a good thing, but we simply can’t afford it any more. We can get something almost as good by return to traditional, realist balance of power principles. Stop subsidizing the defense of Germany, Japan, etc. and let them rearm. Then, ally with them to counterbalance any expansionist moves by Russia or China. Forcing these countries to rearm and reenter the tough real world will also reinvigorate traditionalism within their societies. As far monetary policy, I have not been convinced that the gold standard is a panacea, either. The Rand Paul strategy of focusing on fiscal issues rather than monetary seems to be a good one.

  12. Alex says:

    People are liberals because we’re not interested in forcing antiquated religious values on people.
    People are liberals because we’re educated into a state where we realize that we are not good judges of a person’s worth, and that the safest road to traverse is the idea of equality.
    People are liberals because we are often turned by the hypocrisy of a party that squeals about how moral and good they are by preventing the murder of children in the womb no matter their circumstance, but once they force said children to be born they rail against the idea of providing any form of support.
    People are liberals because we disagree with the notion of solving one’s issues with warfare, or using coercive violence as a means of imposing a national agenda on other sovereign nations.
    People are liberals because we have the majority of post-secondary education, and we think that an educated, skilled populace advances a society, and we are not interested in cutting education budgets in order to provide further tax breaks for people who are incredibly wealthy.
    People are liberals because often enough they have a sense of morality that isn’t dictate to them by the Bible/Koran/Upanishads/Whatever and see that it is wrong for us to simply turn our noses up and dismiss the poor, the disenfranchised, and the weak – in other words we aren’t selfish and utterly materialistic.
    People are liberals because they disagree with the cognitive dissonance inherent in the Republican Party (the vanguard of conservatism) – they want small government, but they want to regulate what substances we consume with the threat of incarceration. They want government out of our lives, but want to decide when a woman will give birth. In other words they want big government where it suits them.
    People are liberals because we do not think it is correct to subsidize massive industries such as oil or mining since they already make huge profits – another example of cognitive dissonance in the Republican mindset is bantering about the free market while not understanding that they are pushing for a largely interventionist government.
    People are liberals because we are sickened by the notion of a man with a gun following an unarmed black teenager and shooting him – we are further sickened by watching the Republican establishment try their damndest to justify the shooter’s actions and demonize the slain teenager.

    In other words people are liberals because so-called conservatives disgust them. Hypocrisy. Violence. Authoritarian control. Disregard for the environment. I think the conservative movement is dying because people my age (~25) have lived through eight years of Bush and seen unbelievable destruction of our country’s reputation and wealth. I think people my age are liberal by and large because the generally older conservatives call us lazy and advocate for further cuts to our education while they enjoy social benefits that will likely be gone for us. I think real conservatism, the -actual- idea of less government, more freedom, and preservation of humanistic values is a good thing.

    Today’s conservatives in politics are not conservatives. They are neo-fascists.

    • In other words people are liberals because so-called conservatives disgust them.

      I’m glad we got this out on the table.

      Let me be clear: liberalism disgusts me. Liberals are victims of liberalism, but they don’t know it yet. They will fight tooth and nail to stay in denial but eventually they will see the light peek through the cracks of their carefully-wrought personal reality shield.

      Liberalism is like any other illusion or delusion. It has a crunchy candy surface, and an interior of pure confusion, doubt, self-hatred, neurosis, schizophrenic levels of externalized oversocialization, and so on. It is like being a heroin addict who immediately forgets what he has done whenever he buys heroin, shoots up, or robs little old ladies for his drug money.

      I think it’s worth pointing out that while Republicans are (mostly) conservatives, not all conservatives are Republicans.

      People are liberals because they disagree with the cognitive dissonance inherent in the Republican Party (the vanguard of conservatism) – they want small government, but they want to regulate what substances we consume with the threat of incarceration.

      We can do that with our existing police force. What really swells government are social welfare programs, propaganda in education, unionized workers, do-good social programs, and expanding regulation.

      The essence of conservatism is that we pay attention to reality, not our feelings about it. You don’t need to be religious for that, and it’s a belief as current as right now, not necessarily based on any ancient ideas.

      With this new information, do you reconsider your statement?

      • crow says:

        Nice to see you, Alex.
        Let’s see what we can do to address your sweeping stereotypes…

        • crow says:

          Sorry Alex – I would have responded at greater length, but my internet connection failed, as it did for most of southwestern BC, for several hours, and by the time it returned, the moment seemed to have passed.
          Y’all come back, now, y’heah?

    • ferret says:

      “People are liberals because we do not think it is correct to subsidize massive industries such as oil or mining since they already make huge profits”

      What is the goal, to make there will be no rich people? This is a liberal idea?

      Don’t forget, these rich people give an employment opportunity to the rest of the society. This is the essence of a healthy capitalism – to have rich people possessing the means of production to give all others a workplace.

      Without capital there will be no work, no money, no ice cream.

      The question was about the “future conservative world” as you can imagine it. Try to make a positive picture consistent with your world-view.

  13. Ben says:

    Is there future for conservatism? All things must die, as part of the natural order of things. So does western civilization. Conservatism, as adressed in Amerika, is still in essence a rear-guard action to salvage the remains of westers civilization, distill them, and work with the outcomes.
    Is it viable, though? The greeks, romans, scandinavians, hindus, germans… they have all fallen, moreover, every place where conservatism has failed has become a third-world cesspool which has never agained turned back to conservatism, because we might have to accept the fact that turning back might be impossible.
    Conservatism is sort of the stage that comes over a civilization after its idealistic stage. Liberalism comes afterwards, followed by a kneejerk reaction, totalitarianism, and third-world status.
    Western civilization is in the beginning of the totalitarian stage. One cannot go backwards, and “cannot step in the same river twice”. Sadly, it still seems like the entire conservative momvement tries to go back to the Good ‘Ol River…
    How about something new? How about the Ideals required for sparking a new civilization? My conservative future is non-existant, I have an Idealistic future – a society in which private enterprise has enabled space travels and all the smart, well to do, practical, and moral people leave old home Terra to prosper among the stars, and start new cultures with new ideals and new civilizations. And when a civilization\planet will stagnate, another wave will leave to start a new one. Thus, in a continuing process in which only the best will surge forward, humanity will truly touch the stars.

    And on a different note, one’s also curious as to your opinion of folk such as Bill Whittle and the rest of the gang in pjtv.

    • We have to make sure we’re getting correct cause-effect relationships here.

      All societies collapse at some point; however, (1) some last much longer than others and (2) when a society fails, often the best of its people (“the remnant”) move on and start a new society. The history of Caucasians has been a series of these moves. We probably originated in Asia, and have been building great civilizations from India, to China, to IndoChina, to Turkey, to Israel, to the modern West for millennia.

      Conservatism means many things. Our mania here is to get to the root of it, which is not a rearguard action but a values system that could be conflated with “traditionalism” in the realist sense. That’s an eternal value. Modern American and European conservatism are offshoots of liberalism.

      I don’t want to go backward. What I want is for us to realize that (1) we live in the same world we always have, and so the same solutions are always relevant (in all ages of humankind, when you were hungry, you ate); (2) there are no new ideas because all ideas are known because all variant solutions are obvious and have been for a very long time; (3) the root of the problem is not in external ideologies or institutions, but in the moral choices of human individuals; however, this means that external ideologies which deny this are part of the problem.

      Your idealistic future is not incompatible with a conservative worldview. It is incompatible with a liberal one. They will spend that money on equality.

      I will have to research Whittle/PJTV. The last two letters of that acronym probably explain why I have no idea what you’re talking about :)

      • ferret says:

        “the root of the problem is not in external ideologies or institutions, but in the moral choices of human individuals”

        A moral choice is made out of a set of available ideologies. This choice depends:
        1. on the awareness about the existence of these ideologies and
        2. (in higher degree) on the ideology proposed and compelled by the ruling class.

        The ruling class is ruling thanks to the ideology that is made looking attractive by the propaganda, the educational system, etc. – all institutions that are controlled by the ruling class.

        That is, as long as the ruling class will pursue the goal of increasing their capital (which is inherent to the capitalist system) without caring about the environment and other aspects of quality of life, there will be no chance of building a better society with good traditions, a save and healthy environment, and a stable economics.

        When we are talking about getting rid of the Nanny State with all its redistributing and incentive activities, remember why these activities had started in the first place: recessions and other problems. Even today there is no consent on how to handle these issues (see wiki ‘Perspectives on capitalism’).

        These “moral choices of human individuals” are part of the adopted ideology.
        See wiki ‘Ideology’; pay attention to the definition of ideology as “a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a “received consciousness” or product of socialization)”.

        Our ideology is to make profit with the growing economy and consuming unlimited natural resources. That’s it. If you are against this approach, you are against the essence of the capitalist system. Of course, if you mean something like described in wiki ‘History of capitalism#Future’, then it’s a different story.

        Also, check wiki ‘quality of life’ (don’t confuse it with the ‘standard of living’ – it’s a wrong goal), and then it will be clear what society we actually need.

        I wrote about ideology because you’ve used this word couple of times recently, which never happened during these five month I’m reading this blog. Though I’m not sure how you define ‘ideology’ and ‘external ideology’.

    • ferret says:

      “all the smart, well to do, practical, and moral people leave old home Terra to prosper among the stars, and start new cultures with new ideals and new civilizations.”

      If these noble people are unable to build a great civilization on the Earth, they will be unable to do it on a different planet.

  14. […] definition of conservative, and many other definitions in the comments conservatism itself, or the idea of conserving complex things against the fanciful ideas of human individuals. At Amerika, we have tried to illustrate this type of better world we’d prefer. One based on consequences and organic wholes; on time-honored traditions, and eternally successful strategies that produce not just quantitative victories, but qualitative ones. Liberalism is about quantity and conservatism is about quality. […]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>