Conservatives of the future will not apologize

The conservatives of today are defensive. They’re fighting a rearguard action against the march of progress, which is society so in love with its methods it has forgotten its goals.

They know that most of society prefers liberal ideas. That is because most people succumb easily to illusions. It’s easy to succumb to illusions; just don’t think through to consequences, and focus on how an idea makes you feel.

As a result, conservatives are apologetic. They back down easily. They let the other side define the discourse. All at a time when, for the first time in decades, conservatives have a plurality if not a majority waiting to vote for them.

This group comes from the biggest population in Western countries, which are the descendents of the founders. These people have tried liberalism, watched it destroy everything good, and now want a return to sanity.

No point apologizing for that. Future conservatives won’t. To them, this election is not about issues, but a choice of futures. Do we want Republicans (Mayberry) or Democrats (Haight-Ashbury)?

Liberals hate this view. They want us to see both parties as shades of the same color. That way, we form no attachments, never figure out the underlying issues, and so are like hamsters racing from one side of the cage to another.

They don’t understand the conservatism is not an ideology, or fashion statement, but a way of life. A way of the heart and mind. A discipline.

Conservatives are those who look at the modern world and say, “Stop.” They think any change must show a clear cause-effect relationship that proves it will achieve its intended results and nothing more.

They like to measure things by tradition. This is because conservatives think on the level of the eternal, beyond any single human being.

They believe in The Good, The Beautiful and The Eternal, but they think what governs best governs least, and that culture, religion and society are better implements for social change than a bloated totalitarian Nanny State justifying itself with good intentions.

As part of this, they believe in natural land, and would keep most of North America and Europe forested if they could. To them, humans need to uphold the eternally beautiful in nature.

Liberals are missing out on these ideas. They’re far more radical than anything liberals will ever think up.

Conservatives, for example, believe in capitalism but only under the rule of strong cultural norms. They value hard work, but that means going full-on, not staying for hundreds of extra hours and sacrificing life. Hard means quality of attack, not quantity of overtime.

They are also the ultimate Darwinists. If an idea works, they keep it; if not, they discard it. This in their view is how humanity evolves as individuals, as a society, and as a species.

They are also the ultimate defenders of innocence. They believe in the fairy-tale type lives that are achievable if we live diligently by conservative principles, and exclude the chaotic and miserable.

It comes down to the decision of what you want. Do you want Haight-Ashbury, with its constant chaos and variety, like a feast of distraction?

Or do you think the outside world is mostly a waste, and want a stable place in which to discover yourself and your purpose? They you might choose a Mayberry instead.

Conservatives of the future will not apologize. They will not justify, grovel or defend. They will view politics as products on a shelf and say, “Yes, I’d like the best option you have, and damn the cost.”

Then they’ll leave all those cheapie short-term “solutions” like liberalism and big government on the shelf, go through the checkout line, and exit into the clear winter sunlight.

11 Responses to “Conservatives of the future will not apologize”

  1. Tucken says:

    Conservatism is not an ideology but a way of life. Aye.
    Yet society is a flimsy immaterial thing. It exists in the mind of people, it is imagination.
    As long as there are male individuals there must be some kind of structure. Your scientific forward logic is ‘male’, it reaches out. It always wants more. That is why globalisation happens, that is why business happens. To have more, make better and improve.
    Your creed and structure has its place. You try and implement it in a funny way, however. I don’t think there is any realistic possibility it can work.

    Politics are all ideas and opinions and society is just an imagined structure based on these ideas. Politicians are happy to add their own opinion to the existing structure. They are insane, and consequently this structure grows the more insane. But there is another side to it. When people are suppressed enough they revolt – there’s a french revolution. Those are very important to understand the needs of the people.
    Feminism and liberalism and socialism have some essence. They are rediculous in the way they work, as they try to make these essentials happen through politics – which were always structured. In politics, you have to be polite, psch. Socialistic ‘giving’ and ‘care’ can never be political, but it happens because that’s the only apparent way to make change happen within this given structure.

    I don’t think you can accomplish what you want to through politics. You could possibly undo these imagined conservative ideals that people do believe in, you see things more clearly. The alternatives are to seize power through

    1. Business. Money. Build an imperium. A real one, not something flimsy through political channels. Like Warren Buffet, I believe this is the possible alternative to he who lives conservatively.
    2. You conquer. Unlike politics, land is ‘real’. Like Genghis Khan.

    America is founded upon this.

    AmeriKa tries to divide and conquer, it is a clever way to get your own way with things, to get what you want.

    As long as men want more to make living better globalisation will happen. To make america one and ultimately the world is the only way. It would help to understand that manly ways are un-natural. The world listen, the world gives. It is more ‘socialistic’. We may not be able to afford being emotionally retarded men anymore, and just a little bit of giving is enough. A small seed for big crops.

    Equality means variety. An appreciation of diversity, life is more rich this way. It is a shitty word for the concept, so I suggest – call it diversity instead. This way there wont be any fighting about it.

    I believe this post pretty much summerize my views. If it is not honest or polite enough, then that’s that. This site is all for change, or it wouldn’t be a revolutionary attempt. Now change that which do not work into something that actually do work. Change through political channels are just more of the same bullshit we always had. Until 1 tradition(box) fits all, crow.

  2. Tucken says:


    Brett: You’re not so bad, but I think this will not work. You can’t make society better because there’s no such thing as society. The idea of it can always be improved, that is why it appeals to you. I find that it is an intelligent attempt to get political opinions through. Ideas, opinions. I was upset with crow, you got the worse end of it. I will not trouble you any more. If you’re passionate about this, you have all my support. Even if its the best possible solution to have a creed it cannot happen through political means. I don’t see it.

    crow: I don’t know meditation. In that im an islander of yours, there is the fake smile every now and then aswell. But I’ve had some strange experiences, where something broke free and I was so energized I could fly. Sometimes when I’ve been really relaxed I may have felt something akin to meditation as I understand it. But I’m rarely able to relax. I do not support these politics. I’m somewhat puzzled you respect Brett so much, though I will give it he’s intelligent. We cleared our, or mine, initial misunderstanding but the emotions must have still been there. I had spent a long time angry, puzzled and mostly confused. At least I went full out as I snapped. I feel like that has taught me something. I need to get that out of me, I didnt know I was so emotional really. You clearly didnt approve so I’ve considered it, made some research. I know try to hit whatever punching bag I can, instead of people. I say this so there will be no misunderstanding this time.

    ferret: I dont bare(bear?) any ill-will towards you. You may not like me, that is fine. As much as I sometimes misbehave, it is my belief you are over-protective. Ferrets are ferocious, you are a bit scared and attack perceived threats. Feel free to mail me and get all your aggressions out. I can understand it, I will listen. Add some spice, make it all chilly.

    Lisa Colorado: I’ve had this cloud of anger around me. Well I still do. Politics are not good for me. Even though I never meant to, it poured out even in my responses to you. I find you give a competent impression and you’re willing to communicate which is very valuable.

    Whoever called me a pimple-face: This humored me much. Because you call me a pimpleface, but you’ve never seen my face. You must be very self conscious about your face, looks. As with ferret, I also invite you especially to mail me. I hate to think I am somehow responsible for building pent-up anger within you and all the rest on this site. Go ahead, and insult me. It will be healthy for the both of us.

    Politics: You are nasty, one nasty business. Farewell and stay away. Be very careful when you use loaded words like ‘equality’. Holy cows are not easily slain.

    • Lisa Colorado says:

      I didn’t feel anger from you.

      Are you Swedish? Maybe there’s a difference of rhetorical style and someone got florid with the adjectives.

      I know how it is to get upset about stuff. You are one liberal I will listen to. We get a LOT of contentious bullshit in the US in the media. Maybe we don’t even realize that we’re all worked up, not calm and rational and friendly anymore.

      Come back and visit, okay? I liked your point of view!

      We write opinions and discuss things but we forget that what we’re trying to accomplish is a meeting of minds.

      fy fan

      • Lisa Colorado says:

        Well, not meeting of the minds but a kind of mutual “ah. I see.”

        • Tucken says:

          Ty Lisa.

          I meant that because I was upset I was not always on my best behaviour. I didnt treat you as fairly as I could have and some irritation slipped out even though it was never a force directed towards you. Just annoyance seeping out. If that makes sense?

          I could have done better replying to your replies, for one. Which I think you deserved.

    • 1349 says:

      90% of those who die in your capital are cremated, and 45% of urns aren’t claimed by relatives. Keep away from politics and one day you’ll happily realize that you don’t remember your mother’s face.

      The “cosmetologist with a pimpled face” was not an insult but a trope, you idiot! =)

      …Faces, by the way. I’ve always wondered what the ones writing and commenting here look like.
      In the long run, total anonymity and facelessness of the internet seem sizeable blocks in the wall of the irresponsible leftist “freedom of speech”…

      • ferret says:

        I’ve always wondered…

        Some blogs support icons with pictures. You can see mine on Nothing special, no pimps :)

  3. Lisa Colorado says:

    Well, yeah, Tucken. There is no way it can work, and maybe that’s because we’re not trying to make a system work in the sense of saying how things should turn out. Or are we?

    I think, we’re trying to let things pivot on basic principles in the background rather than control every step with promptings of what we should say, eat, think.

    With regards to the male principle, the way I see it Liberalism tries to do away with men’s thinking. A male approach to a problem is to think about what the steps should be, based on the problem that’s there, and take the logical steps to make it function well for what it’s intended to do. The current Liberal thinking is to eliminate the male “thinking for himself” paradigm and substitute a “let me do the thinking and you do your part to make my vision happen.”

    Male thinking is objective and female thinking is subjective. Liberal thinking requires us to accept what they say, and that is subjectivism, right?

    I suppose we’re trying to get what we want instead of getting what Michelle Obama wants us to. So many people take option C. which is a substitute for what they really deeply want.

    We’ve got to have both masculine and feminine principle at work. The masculine has to stop apologizing and the female has got to stop hen pecking. Those are the worst qualities of both sides when they’ve gone wrong.

    The strong masculine principle leads forward but it can go astray, because logic can take you anywhere you want to go. The strong feminine principle senses when things are out of sync, or the vibrations are out of harmony, and refuses to go along. Both are needed.

    I get these ideas from Camille Paglia in her book “Sexual Personnae.” The first part of it is a deep exploration of these ideas and I love it.

    Currently, I hope Romney does not apologize and I think it’s courageous to speak your views even when media jackals try to tear you apart. There are two choices: speak out and don’t apologize and live for the fight, or apologize and get taken down, torn up, eaten and pooped out by jackals who have no class. I am frightened of alienating my friends, but now I’m beginning to see that we must all find out what we’re made of.

  4. Jim says:

    There’s a video at the DNC where they guy asks everyone if they are pro choice. Then proceeds to show their hypocrisy and just how totalitarian liberals really are when it comes regulating personal choices in other areas. Some examples were the recent NY soft drink ban, smoking, trans fats, guns, all the things liberals are trying to regulate or even ban were acceptable levels of government intrusion yet these people are “pro choice”.

  5. NotTheDude says:

    Why apologise for being right? I often think if the crowd on the left could see the wonderment that Conservativism could bring, they might change, but they hate having to be unselfish. I too dream of a wilder world in general. One were we can show our young that the beasts of the earth live alongside us, not inbetween and around us and we teach them their ways like some of we still do. Keep up the eco posts!

  6. Eric says:

    I still don’t sit well with the whole liberal / conservative dichotomy. I refuse to say I am either, I have just kind of gotten fed up with so much of it. I like to think for myself and come to my own conclusions. That all said, part of why I come here and read the posts and comments is that it makes me think.

    We live in very weird existential times. World population was about 1.6 billion in 1900, and rose to about 6 billion a hundred years later. Now just twelve years after that, we have crossed the 7 billion mark. And it keeps going.

    We have technology that has wired us all together. And in many ways, instead of accepting this existential conundrum (well, really conundrums) we have created, we have instead launched ourselves head-first into escapism and denial in regards to so much.

    I don’t have the answers. The times are strange. How I am supposed to be in this crazy world I do not know. What I do know is that I intend to not add to the craziness if at all possible, and I will search out that that is sane and rational. Unfortunately, our society seems incapable of true and genuine discussion about how things are. I think most people have their “selves” and egos so wrapped up in dogma, they are unable to see past that.

    Although I don’t agree with all I read here (and I should not I suppose if I am truly attempting to think for myself), I appreciate what is being expressed and explored. I also enjoy the thoughtful comments from others who are also trying to sort through these modern times. All we can do is try and raise ourselves above this mess. Well, we can do more, but certainly that is a start any individual can work on immediately. From there, I guess it depends on what you think the right answers are.

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>