As usual, half of the audience for conservatism finds itself enraged at conservatives, who seem to have failed to conserve much of anything. In retrospect, however, the assault by the popularity of illusion seems like nothing could have stopped it, only delayed it.
However the sheer intensity of this attack has left conservatives baffled about what they believe, mainly because all of the language of political discourse has Leftist origins. Typical of linguistic inversion, they have made taboo or altered any pro-conservative term, leaving only politicized language.
Today we will review some terms and their meanings.
The term equality refers to the Big Lie at the heart of Leftism: all people are the same, so we treat them with the same process or method, and therefore, magically have good results. Designed to deny the need for social hierarchy, or higher castes for smarter people to make better decisions with their greater power, the Leftist Big Lie aims to obliterate the idea that we can have a society other than a bureaucracy. It wants to overthrow anyone more talented and replace them with group opinion, which always tends toward a lowest common denominator because it reflects collective fears more than future goals. Our brainwashed “conservatives” will usually reply with some nonsense about equality under the law or equality of opportunity, not realizing that they are preaching Leftism, albeit in a less extreme form. This doubly applies to libertarians, who believe that if we give the raving masses “liberty,” they will do something other than assert the usual anarchist decay to third world levels. It is all rather laughable.
Our modern political thinkers like to say that Western Civilization has its roots in Enlightenment or Christian thought, and therefore, that we were always universalists who believed that people could be something more than what they were. This denies Mother Nature; you are what your genes code you to be, which means that you have limited abilities, and the nature of those abilities determines where you are in the hierarchy. Even more than that, “equality” reduces us all to faceless members of a mob which has no accountability, and therefore demands what its members want — anarchy without consequences — instead of what benefits the organism that is the group, such as a civilization. If you ask a bunch of employees what they want, the answer is more money and less work, but then the business collapses. Funny how the post French Revolution society and Soviet Union both collapsed from this paradox.
One can look at the goal of society as being a number of different things. Our modern thinkers give us two choices: the individual or the collective. The theory of Crowdism tells us that those are one in the same, since individualists acting for their own benefit naturally form collectives to enforce that behavior as a new standard. Conservatives choose a different path, since we are not ideological — followers of symbolic ideals, like equality — but realists, or those ends-over-means thinkers who are most concerned with results in the real world and only secondarily concerned what people think about it as a group (utilitarianism). We choose neither the individual nor the collective, but the idea of natural order, including notions of a divine balance, harmony, and purpose to existence. This proves most compatible with religion and culture, which is why conservatism is associated with faith and nationalism, even if it is inspecific about the spiritual tradition in question (most conservatives believe in some variation on Gnot, or “God, nature, or the Gods,” an allusion to the previous Neoreactionary idea of Gnon, or “God of nature or nature’s God”).
You might as well ask, “Do conservatives oppose demonization of pickles on sandwiches?” These things are irrelevant to us because they are made-up Leftist language designed to render taboo any noticing of the difference between groups. The real goal of the Left is to abolish classism, or the noticing that human groups separate into different bands by IQ and moral character. Some are born to be kings, some shopkeepers, and some peasants, and this is hard-wired into us with our DNA; the Left, born deniers of Darwin and natural selection, hate the idea that it is impossible for a peasant to grow up to be a king simply by having the right opinions, memorizing the correct stuff at school, and working in a bureaucracy until he gets promoted upward.
Conservatives on the other hand refuse to deny the order of nature for human hubris, or desire for self-importance outside the natural order of things, and instead pursue arete or metaphysical excellence, meaning the best that the natural order has to offer. This means that we do not step above or outside our role in the patterns of nature, remaining apex predators yet below gods, but that we aim to improve ourselves qualitatively — increasing depth, degree, duration, precision, and grade of behavior and output — through many small changes over time, instead of big quantitative changes like altering the basic systems of life so that people feel more comfortable.
Modern people freak out at the idea of a great golden chain of life with yeasts on the bottom and aristocrats on top, but it makes sense when one observes nature; some species rise above others, and within those species, some variants and individuals rise above the rest. Those traits are passed on, so these roles are enduring, meaning that unless something goes wrong (a bad mutation leading to a morally or intellectually inferior candidate) sons and daughters inherit from their parents, so you want them to serve in the same roles. In fact, all of Leftism is a revolution against this aspect of the natural order.
Conservatives conserve, which means that we preserve nature, the natural order, and the best of human endeavor, meaning all the things that have worked well and also been significant to human life since the dawn of time. We conserve culture, art, heritage/genetics, wisdom, nature, and civilizations. Throughout history, diversity has never meant anything but a dying civilization bringing in foreigners to replace its own citizens, either so that the rulers can remain in power, to provide luxuries more cheaply, or both. We stand against the decay of good things, so — since we love our civilization — we have no use for diversity.
On the other hand, we have no use for bigotry, or the habit of scapegoating another group for our problems. The Jews did not do this to us; nor did the Blacks. Our civilization rose up and thrived, and so it attracted all evil to it, both from within and without. From within, we produced lots of people with deleterious mutations who would not have survived outside society and resented it for that fact, so attempted to take it over; from without, we experienced an onslaught of attacks by Asians and Muslims, the adoption of a foreign religion and the numerous religious wars that followed, and our own infighting caused by our division into nationalities and the territorial conflicts that resulted. On top of that, we got a series of plagues and famines to stress us. It is amazing that we have survived this long at all. To survive in the future, we need to get rid of all aspects of the decline, including class warfare and diversity.
We believe in the cyclic nature of history, which means that humans discover a good thing, then slowly forget, then wander into ignorance, and finally must discover it again. This process also applies to civilization. A fully traditional civilization has a unified culture and its own faith, a social hierarchy and a ruling caste of aristocrats, an economy based on family roles, lots of natural land, and an ethos of positive thinking and aggressive, assertive enforcement and enhancement of a natural order. Obviously right now we are in the “dark” part of the historical cycle, having gotten away from that into various (failing) experiments like liberal democracy, market socialism, civil rights, equality, diversity, and feminism.
Perhaps this will help tune minds to conservatism, especially within the Right, which seems to know only that it is what it is, and has forgotten what it is to be that.