Conservatism ruined itself as a trademark

hong_kong_apartments

Think about your ideal conservatives. They would be like wise elders. They would be stable. But they would be positive, always seeing the best in life and determined to bring it out.

Now look at today’s “conservatives.”

In the public sphere, we have a group of liberals who believe in balanced budgets, capitalism and strong defense. That’s a better direction than the liberals will take us, but one that leads back to the same state as liberal government creates.

In the underground, we have alienated angry people who cannot even admit their philosophy, if they developed it to its logical extent, is conservative. Nationalism for them is a goal in itself, and so they make it fanatical and discard everything needed to support it, to make it meaningful and give it context.

The point of being conservative is to conserve. The past offers us wisdom; it offers us a model of civilization that actually, you know, works. It’s worth preserving civilization because life is a gift, and making life more functional enhances that gift.

What we are fighting for is literally a choice between a heaven and hell on earth. Conservatives believe in innocence, purity, loyalty, honor and a sense of all life being sacred. Liberals are so blinded by their quest to make everyone equal that they deny the presence of reality itself. Denial like that creates deathbound societies which cannibalize all good things to feed their need for every increasing numbers of warm bodies.

Since the French Revolution, the West has torn itself apart with ideological quests for a workable form of liberalism. All have failed. Currently, the debt bomb that Western governments have created by buying votes with entitlement programs is poised to explode. The atmosphere in the city is grim; people are nervous, forget things, can’t sleep, and charge forward with manic energy but thoughtless acts. They are insectoid now, almost pure reaction to stimulus, the mind canceled behind the wild eyes.

Conservatives need to step up and make themselves an option. This is not formed through new movements, but through concentrating all of our different movements into one solid offering that is unafraid to offer actual alternatives to liberalism. That is, unlike today’s conservatives, it cannot be liberal. Most people are afraid of social censure and so they will not do this. But the future belongs to those who can.

14 Comments

  1. Vigilance says:

    Conservatism was out moded. Aristocracy, resource conservation, trade barriers, and environmental conservation were not conductive to the Enlightenment dream of a limitless future. The autonomy granted to the individual by the sheer wealth of industrialization and Western colonialism shattered the agricultural Aristocracies. Resource conservation was a road block to putting a man on the moon and the free market. Trade barriers choke the delicate resource distribution chain that powers industry to the scale that humanity was ever able to propel itself beyond the confines of its home. Environmental conservation would have had to come with the acceptance that man is subservient to the wits and wims of nature. Blinded by the fruits of industry, the sheer control Western man found he had attained made sure conservation of energy or environment would never be an option.

    Ethnic Nationlism is probably best left in the dustbin. In theory you can separate racism from pragmatics. In practice, it’s less coherent. Sure, you can distance yourself from counter currents types. Yet any meaningful nationalist action will be filled with those types. Then there is the massive historical inconsistency between what actually occurs in human populations versus what is idealized. The reality is always that pockets of humanity expand into others, causing displacement, intermingling and rearrangement. Wealth of Imperial nations attract foreigners. Slave labor brings in whole castes of foreigners. It’s not hard to notice that ethnicity is temporary.

    Conservatism did nothing but be wholly incapable with the coincidences that created the modern world. I can’t think of a better way of putting that. It lost on ideological grounds as much as it lost on the global stage. Every conservative agrarian society was out competed.

    If anything, conservatism failed being adaptive.

    1. 1349 says:

      Conservatism is defensive, reactive rather than active. In theoretical modelling it often looks much like a retreat of a nation into itself. On a personal scale this would mean atomization.
      Also, in amerika’s presentation, conservatism often looks like a mindset that embraces logic and keeps emotion in the background. As if conservatism vs. liberalism = logic vs. emotions.
      If a person (nation) wants to reach for goals that are above the level of their own ego, they’ll have to rise above the aforementioned dualism. To a level where their only active part – spirit/will – works; and its work is not necessarily logical…
      And this would rather be a choice between realism (a mindset that tries to understand reality in all of its complexity; heavy metal as one example) and autism; but not between conservatism and liberalism…

      1. Vigilance says:

        Conservativism being absolutely defensive runs the risk of Faustus. The application of a particular set of problem solving techniques beyond their pull-date. It’s easy to hold onto what works, but difficult to see the coincidences which allowed for that success. Too often, those coincidences are ignored or unnoticed, and thus the application of tried and true methods to solve problems will drag entire civilizations into hell.

        I’ll leave the rest alone, if you’ll pardon me.

        1. crow says:

          Conservatism is generally defensive, because when you can’t form any clear picture of the nature of that which is attacking you, defensiveness seems the only option.
          But there is a point at which conservatism conservatively declines to engage in combat, preferring to conserve the vehicle that offers the only chance of its own survival.
          Its own sanity.

          1. Vigilance says:

            Coincidentally, the value I find in this website lies with its ability to form clear pictures of liberalism.

            1. crow says:

              Yes! That’s it, in a nutshell. Brett is a master of that.
              Know thine enemy. Then laugh at him, and get on with living.

              1. Vigilance says:

                He’s a good taxonomist to be sure. I do value the narratives he delicately weaves; though probably for different reasons than most readers.

                1. crow says:

                  There’s no single standard interpretation, in spite of whatever leftists would have us believe.

                  Why do Irishmen wear two condoms?
                  “To be sure. To be sure!”

                  1. Vigilance says:

                    I figured it had something to do with the whiskey.

            2. If I hadn’t screwed up in life enough to learn my own mind, none of this would be possible. I guess someone has to walk point into the waste lagoon.

        2. 1349 says:

          I’ll leave the rest alone, if you’ll pardon me.

          What you’ve said is a good comment on “the rest” as well, although this might be unobvious for you.

    2. LoreTek says:

      I see conservatism/conservation as defenseless – that is, it is a priory knowledge.

      Also I think it failed because it tried to be adaptive when the modern world mandated “real” must be testable/ all truths carry with them a burden of proof – that is, when attacked with hypothetical and empirical data it attempted to absorb and explain them.

      Worth while ancient and early modern philosophy always seemed to warn that the ancient or true good should hardly be written and never added to with current ideals.

      Such that the addition of empirical revelations is in direct proportion to its corruption – that is, conservation (of the ultimate good) died the second it was no longer allowed to stand on its own (defenseless).

      1. crow says:

        Wow! Excellent comment, and profound.

  2. crow says:

    Conservatives must develop, above all, an ability to stand together with each other, and resist the liberal urge to censure each other for their perceived lack of ideology.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.646 seconds