How The Left Misunderstands Conservatism


The Left has never understood conservatism because the Left has never wanted to. To them, their ideology of egalitarianism leads directly to Utopia, at which point there will no longer be conflict between humans and everyone will be accepted. Any deviation from this is a moral sin punishable by death, in their view.

That explains why the Left does not want to understand conservatism: they have zero room for it in their pantheon of ideologically-tinted symbolic representations of reality. This is because while conservatism is voiced as an ideology, fundamentally it is anti-ideological because it bases its perceptions on reality.

Conservatism comes from the term “to conserve,” which means that we preserve successful means of achieving excellence. In human terms, nothing can be preserved in a static sense, but must be regenerated anew in each generation, so “conservation” means not physical things but principles, methods and ideas.

As written here before, that means that conservatism has two attributes:

  1. Consequentialism. We judge success by end results and side-effects, not by human intent, feelings, judgments, universal symbols and emotions. Reality is external to us; internal focus is solipsistic.

  2. Transcendence. There must be some goal higher than material reaction, like excellence, beauty, goodness and truth, and we discover it through intuition, which is within but not personal.

This contrasts with Leftism, which has only one attribute: egalitarianism, or the equality of people, which is presumed to lead to pacifism and universal acceptance, and from there to Utopia. Leftism works through negative actions, or things it wishes to remove; conservatism requires restructuring society around positive goals, or things we want to achieve.

For this reason, in our Leftist time, our Leftist media has trouble understanding why conservatism does not translate into Leftist terms. First they want to make it an ideology; then, they try to import egalitarianism — the core and principle of Leftism — into it, despite for conservatism, egalitarianism being at most a means to an end and not an end in itself.

As a recent article demonstrate, our society is now struggling to understand conservatism which is as distant as a foreign land to a society brainwashed in two centuries of Leftism:

Nash presented an influential portrait of conservatism as a river fed by three tributaries of thought: Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism). Although each could be rendered as a popular impulse or unthinking reflex of the mass mind, Nash insisted that all three were fundamentally intellectual traditions, nourished by a cast of characters who deserved both respect and extended study, among them James Burnham, the former socialist turned anti-Communist; Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian classical economist; and Russell Kirk, America’s answer to Edmund Burke. In Nash’s telling, these were the men (and they were almost all men) who created conservatism in the postwar years.

This article is patent nonsense. Conservatism is not a material ideology, but a timeless principle. It can be found in “Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism)” but they are not its constituent components. Rather, as a principle, it is found many places, and those are the ones we recognize — “observer bias” — because of their recent relevance.

A conservative is someone who likes what works. Because the question then arises “How well does it have to work?” he has to pick either bare minimums (utilitarianism) or best case scenarios, and that latter leads him to the goal of excellence. That in turn picks out the principle of nature: all works to produce a hierarchy that advances the best over the rest, and this extends to metaphysical principle.

For all that modern people know of conservatism, the above passage might as well be in ancient Greek. However, as we enter into a conservative area with Brexit rippling across the USA and Europe, we might want to understand the path out of the Leftist mental ghetto and how we can use it to save ourselves from the moribund inertia of liberalism.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “How The Left Misunderstands Conservatism”

  1. Badmar says:

    Conservatism has correspondences that work and have always worked. Our job is to make the connections consistently.

  2. Dualist says:

    “And how we can use it to save ourselves from the moribund inertia of liberalism.”

    Let’s hope that from day one Trump starts rolling out truly-conservative policy after policy, all completely unapologetically. And when more people begin to see these actually start WORKING (instead of the Hitlerdoom scenario the Left tried to scare people with), this could start an even-greater snowball-effect than we had ever dared to dream. Then if Trump knows there’s an increasing (reawakened?) appetite for true conservatism, he would most surely start rolling-out things even quicker again.

    One simple example relates to Brexit. Our leftist media have been trying to terrify people by saying “once we leave the EU, who could we possibly we trade with?”. Obama weighed in before our election to threaten that Britain would be “bottom of the pile” of the list of countries to make new trade deals with. Trump, on the other hand, simply said “yep, we can sort out a trade deal with the UK”. It’s really that simple, isn’t it, as long as one starts off from the question ‘what works?’ rather than ‘what makes me look most leftwing?’. It’s a small start, but demonstrates a completely different, necessary, attitude. The newsreader almost cried as he read it out.

    I don’t know about you fellas over there, but it’s been scrumptious here watching the baffled, worried, lefty BBC news commentators try to rationalise why such a hated woman lost, and why (in their words) ‘even in states with high numbers of ethnic minorities'(!), Trump still won. They’re STILL trying their best to portray Trump supporters as uneducated morons.

    Before I turned on the post-election TV coverage yesterday evening, I made a prediction to the person sat next to me: ‘every single Trump supporter they interview, without fail, will be either fat, ugly, sound slow/moronic, or be in some other way silly or unatractive; they’ll try to bring Christianity into it too’.

    Instantly, after turning the State Propaganda Machine on, we first had an obscenely-overweight chap who sounded like a borderline imbecile. Next we had a crazy-looking older woman with dyed, bright-red hair and awful makeup. Then the BBC woman was forced to ask a funny little brown lady (who spoke little English) why her kind had voted for Lucifer “Donald” Trump, despite him making such ‘hurtful’ comments about Mexicans. The presenter actually winced as the minorityess replied ‘I wasn’t offended in the least, neither was anybody I know’. Finally, they tried to imply that Evangelical Christians voted for Trump en masse, just as they cut to an odd-looking, morbidly-obese pastor in a t-shirt playing a piano and singing alone in a trendy-looking, empty church.

    As I switched the box off (for another 4 years), the (red-ish pilled) person next to me sat mouth agape, and then asked the hilarious question of how could I have predicted it all in such detail. “Because I live and breathe, lad” was my first reply, followed by “and I watched SOME of the pre-election coverage, too”.

    Pondering over this, later, I realised that my friend had certainly also seen the pre-election coverage for many months, but didn’t ‘see’ what would have been as clear as day to anybody reading here. This was chilling, and recalled Goebbels’ words to the effect that ‘the most effective propaganda is that wherein the viewer does not know he is being led’.

    But this time, try as it might, the media did NOT get its own way.

    The Dirt People have finally started to ignore the diktats of the Rat People.

    • crow says:

      If more people were actually like the noble rat, we would all be far better off than trying to ‘act-like’ the ‘noble’ humans most of us are not.
      Rats, reviled by humans, get along with each other, and their surroundings, far better than most of us do.

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>