Conservatives need to avoid getting roped into being the voice of maturity that is a counterpart to the liberal voice of childishness.

From a distance, the childish looks like more fun and maturation looks like fascism. To a casual observer, whether a bored office worker, existentially challenged housewife, or angry teenager, the childish side looks like more fun.

This plays into the tendency of modern people to be constantly depressed and self-hating because they have externalized their self-worth in the form of money, status, power and most of all, peer pressure. As a result they are constantly looking for the uplifting and find it in the childish.

As a result, conservatives like abused children of domineering parents found themselves thrust into the role of “being the bigger person.” If the other side does something criminal, we ignore it and move on. If they demand a ludicrous plan, we come in later and fix the ruins.

From this has come a neutered version of conservatism. It accepts the basic precepts of the left, namely that every person is entitled to their own equally valid “reality,” but adds to it a finger waggling high school disciplinarian.

We as a result get drawn into trying to save people from themselves. “Don’t do drugs,” instead of the more self-serving “don’t do drugs around my family.” We try to create a perfect, safe and gentle society with laws and public initiatives.

The paradox of humanity however is that the more we try to fix things, the worse the result is. This is because we try to fix symptoms, not underlying causes. Our good intentions are on the surface level of the visible part of bigger problems, like icebergs beneath the surface.

This surface thinking arises from the social nature of civilization itself. We see things as others might see them, instead of how they are independent from a human bias toward the human perspective. This creates a one-dimensional surface view based in social notions of what should be right.

Just like nature is full of optical illusions, and unexpected twists and turns that defy “common sense” and visual aspects, nature is full of logical traps like this. We do not notice our bias because we are the instrument of our own perception.

Thus we walk into an erroneous way of viewing the world and have no one who is not human to show us the world outside humanity and correct us. We would if we listened more to all the good, noble, brave and kind dogs of the world, but they are short on language tokens so we do not.

Conservatives are entirely anathema to this social view. We care about what is eternal: beauty, efficiency, history, ideals. We focus on consequences of actions, not the action as both cause and effect as it is visualized socially, and as a result have an intense desire to know our world and predict consequences.

This is a losing proposition in a popularity contest like democracy because most people, owing to a combination of limited congenital intelligence and limited time and energy to expend learning airy subjects, pick the short-term, social, exciting and individually rewarding over the eternal.

It is for this reason that every society known to ever exist has started dying as soon as people began viewing individuals as equal. If we’re all equal, we’re all entitled to our opinions, and there is no reality principle. This creates a society where social reality and equal validity are more important than discovering reality, using it to predict the consequences of our actions, and planning for the best possible long-term consequences so that we can alter our actions to reach that state.

As those who do not wish to see collapse, conservatives are always pushing back against the tide. But in doing so, conservatives get shifted into the role of nanny, guardian and policeman. We become the cleanup crew for whatever mess the left makes.

This allows them to get away with it. They can honestly look at the past and say, “We did all this crazy and destructive stuff, and it all turned out just fine!”

It also makes conservatives unpalatable. Who do you want to vote for, the young lawmaker or his decrepit virgin aunt who thinks he should always wear a sweater and wash his hands twice before meals?

There is an old saying that does not get enough airtime. It is: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Conservatives have good intentions, alright, and it is why they win elections less frequently than they should.

15 Responses to “Maturity”

  1. EvilBuzzard says:

    Maturity vs Prudishness. Part of maturity is judgement. Part of good judgement is being able to differentiate between wrong and fun. If your smart enough to just let people enjoy themsleves and have honest fun, then you won’t get sucked into the trap of being labeled as anti-aesthetic and anti-fun.

  2. Lisa Colorado says:

    I don’t know where to go with that. Surely we have a misunderstanding about the nature of equality, because if the truth is that people are unequal, then feudalism and serfdom comes to my mind as the kind of society where people have the amount of power accorded to their type of work and the skew of people capable of being higher on the scale.

    Equality is a Western value that came about during the Enlightenment (right? or not…) I read a book years ago when the middle-eastern terrorists were having a hayday. I think it was called Occidentalism. It was about Western civilization vs. Eastern (Oriental vs. Occidental) and it said that Occidentalism is about hating The West and all it stands for. Never mind that our Western culture brought about a gigantic technological and social advance that made life better for so many people–we don’t worship and subdue our lives to some great god, so we are not good.

    In a society that places highest value on obedience to God (which in my view means bowing to authoritarianism, really) people don’t have the option to be self-loathing because they have no option to love themselves. It all depends on how some authority views them.

    To address self-hate there has to be self-acceptance and letting go of false ideals. The goals we set for ourselves have to be our own meaningful ones. Instead of plastic surgery we need to learn the beauty of our own flaws and frailties, and accept them in others.

    If we honestly all did what I said, would we start to put up with one another’s deviant, degrading crap more in the name of tolerance? I like to think we’d have more secure boundaries…and yet it does fall short on how to make us stronger as a society so that Islamists can’t take over whole Western cities.

    Then what would we be fighting for? We’d end up back in the basic struggle to take care of me and mine that we left behind back when we were a more morally-concerned people. So, I can see what you’re getting at, Brett. We have to accept morals. If we don’t, those with moral fiber will run us down.

    • Missy says:

      “If we don’t, those with moral fiber will run us down.”

      I wonder if the Islamists/Moslems really do have more moral fiber in all respects. Yes, I guess it takes fiber, all right, to blow yourself up in the name of your cause; I do admire that kind of courage, just as I admire the monks who burned themselves to protest the war in Viet Nam. But after that, how are those people any more moral? I suppose this would hinge on your definition of moral, so maybe we need a discussion of that.

    • Lisa;

      Equality is a phantom.

      “Equality” is what you get when you have the state throwing people in jail if they don’t treat everyone /the same/.

      Of course, people don’t like to be reminded of their inadequencies of failings in relation to others. The weak will resent the strong as a reminder they are less. So in order to compensate, they demand to be treated The Same As.

      There is a construction team of men, who can all lift fifty bricks an hour, but a woman feels demeaned if she is told she cannot get a job in the team with her measly 20 brick an hour limit. In order for her to gain “Equality,” the construction team has to limit their bricklifting to her pace, and she will be either correspondingly overpaid, or the men able to earn their full amount.

      Of course, she can still only lift 20 bricks an hour. But society is bigger than one construction business, and because society has no goal except validating peoples feelings, the construction business has to toe the line. Even though it disrupts an actual, real life goal.

      The “equality” is the social reality of feelings and agreements being put before flesh and blood, brick and tar differences. It doesn’t actually exist. Nothing in nature is equal, because equal means “the same as”; and nothing in nature is alike.

      The idea of serfdom and feudalism is a spectre raised up to get you to fear embracing a larger goal than yourself.

      If you decided to live for the eternal, and succeeded, that would surely be resented by those who didn’t.

      So they tell you that measuring people according to how well they performed in service of a goal is fascism, evil, medieval, barbaric.

      In truth they are simply demanding that they are just as good as you (which is another way of saying they are demanding nothing matters except their own feelings).

      I’m a moral nihilist, I don’t believe in “morality”; I think morality is simply a codification of evolutionary in-group defense doctrine (or trendy ideologies like liberalism). They haven’t discovered a morality particle at CERN, so I’m not down with it.

      That being said, I’m a quasi-christian with a lot of reverence for natural beauty, enduring character, etc. One of my favourite ways of thinking is that the LORD provides; giveth and taketh away, I exist only to serve him and it is my honour to do so on his earth. I don’t believe in any literal cosmic deity. Saying “God exists” is simply saying “The world is greater than you.”

      A society that places the utmost on obedience to God..

      Well, then, you better start watching My Little Pony, because their whole having a Goddess as the Monarch thing works out pretty well.

      Heil Celestia!

  3. Meow Mix says:

    I get the point of this article, but what are we supposed to do? Let liberals destroy society and then laugh at them? I guess that’s one option. Since the younger generations tend to be much more liberal (and libertarian) then maybe the only course of action is no action at all, or am I missing an important nuance here?

    • I like that track too.

      The nuance is this bit:

      “We as a result get drawn into trying to save people from themselves. “Don’t do drugs,” instead of the more self-serving “don’t do drugs around my family.””

      And this bit:

      “surface view based in social notions of what *should* be right.”

      Brett here is riffing on that conservatives see “the eternal” (for lack of a less weighty phrase); and form their values around this.

      The conflict he is nodding towards is that conservatives, in trying to push back liberalism, fall into universalising their conservatism.

      Part of this is the nature of living in a two party state system. Because seccession isn’t easy, the values have to be universalised.

      Lets do Brett’s example backwards: Conservatives recognise that hedonism is a path away from constructive life rather than towards it, and produce the macro imperative “Prevent people doing drugs around my kids.” Because the demos, the mob, is in control; the micro imperatives produced are then “Get in power and push don’t do drugs programmes.”

      To be honest the article, like a lot of articles about holistic concepts, puts things in the wrong order (like this comment). It’s tricky because everything is circular.

      Because there is no consensus on goal (not mentioned), the consensus on reality falls apart as there is no imperative to produce one. Because the reality principle falls apart, everyones opinion becomes equally valid; and individual feelings become more important than the overall goal.

      What Brett mutely calls having a goal and what I call national destiny is like the immune system against this happening. Those who consider themselves more important than the goal are screened out – Don’t do drugs around my kids.

      But because we have no reality principle or way of valuing people in relation to The Goal left, it tricks us into thinking that the mission of Get in Power – Start Don’t Do Drugs programmes will actually work, because all individuals are equally valued (no goal to measure by).

      The social reality of not wanting to seem like a jerk by denying anti-drug programmes to those most likely to fail at them overrides the conservative goal of Don’t Do Drugs Around My Kids, because the conservative has to subscribe to the liberal, social reality playbook in order to do the Micro Imperative of getting into power.

      That’s the crux. The reality-reality of simply getting together in one town and shooting any drug takers who refused to leave is exchanged for the social reality of “helping” all drug takers, everywhere; because to do so only for a few middle class kids and not the inner city trash would be “unfair.”

      The goal of a drug free neighbourhood is absorbed into a futile mission to become popular by subscribing to the same liberal premise, but with addendums to fulfill the original mission:

      “Drugs afflict /all/ communities and /we/ need to deal with this, so we will roll out drug prevention, treatment and penalisation programmes /universally/.. ” etc.”

      Whereas the liberal version of:

      “The solution to drugs is to legalise them, woohoo!” is more popular.

      Conservatism becomes neutered. It becomes Liberal NIMBYism. Drugs are like, fine, whatever, just, go steady.

      The good intention of trying to save people from themselves is derived from adherence to the popular but incorrect idea that everyone is equally at risk, and somehow “deserves” equal treatment. Conservatives get stuck into the idea that X community *should* use less drugs, and therefore tries to get public funding for more cops doing drug raids in that area; Addressing the symptom of social reality (if you want to take drugs, that’s cool, everyones entitled to their opinion) and not the underlying symptom (X is a member of a racial group with a higher disposition to impulsivity due to different physiology).

      This is why Brett talks about dogs;

      Dogs are outside of the human social reality and see very plainly and unconsciously that their role is as wards and guardians of humans;

      And are wary of humans forgetting that they too, are just parts of nature, and in the long run cannot afford to put the feelings of the crowd of individuals before the cohesive wellbeing of the whole.

      • Meow Mix says:

        Thanks, that makes a little more sense, but I still have to ruminate on it a little more to see how it can be applied in realtime.

  4. Levy_Spearmen says:

    Yay! Congratulations on another spotless article.

    Children, and I mean young adults ages 15 and up, need much more discipline and chances to decide their course with elder guidance. The part of domineering parents and their ruinous plans just cracked me up. If I remember correctly, the Roman citizenry were drafted into the military at age 15, which produced the most volatile civilization ever! Unmanliness killed humanity.

    • Levy_Spearmen says:

      It seems people believe sagas of great young men such as Alexander the Great were total mythologies. If I may, FUCK CHRIST.

  5. Lisa Colorado says:

    One thing I know is that a leader is only the leader if people will follow. People need to be free to know who to put their efforts under to support.

    Equal isn’t the same as matched in potency.

    • I think that’s very true. A leader needs to be respected for his/her leadership, which then makes the role fit the person. However, the flip side of that is that the leadership must be demonstrated on practical problems, or this becomes a popularity contest and those always pick weak leaders.

  6. brothach says:

    The conservative delights in this role because it is easier than making a positive case for an alternative to liberalism, which would require facing down liberalism’s sacred cows of equality, anti-Westernism and anti-discrimination. He gets the respect accorded to a wise elder without confronting the cause of the error, which would require true statesmanship.

    I was watching a documentary about China the other day, it was investigating the legacy of the Great Leap Forward. The film-makers had to go to a backwater provincial museum to find one photo frame among hundreds that showed the backyard smelting of metals. No other mention of the Great Leap was there.

    They then cut to a statue of Mao, with many hundreds of native Chinese visiting and paying their respects. The same Mao whose policies killed tens of millions of Chinese.

    A society needs to believe in itself to grow and succeed. Individuals need to inherit a positive conception of their group’s heritage and tradition. This is why the PRC, despite the disastrous record of its founding ideology and early leadership, is in a position to grow. The PRC respects its founders, downplays their mistakes and celebrates their triumphs. This is evident throughout the education system and media institutions. Schoolkids from primary-upwards are taken to important national monuments and given an enthusiastic spiel by their teachers. They learn from an early age that they are part of something bigger, something strong and worthy of admiration.

    Contrast this with the West. We shower students with a condensed Cultural Left account of history in which our achievements are overshadowed by shameful injustices committed on our behalf. Morality in most learning institutions is defined by the extent to which one identifies with ‘the other’ in opposition to the values of one’s own civilisation and culture. This is the moral universe in which Australia proclaimed a national “sorry day” for its indigenous people. We are sorry, we were wrong, etc, etc. Would British culture be thanked for the benefits its civilisation bequeathed onto the other? No, its a one-way street of self-hatred.

    The contrast with China is clear. In the West you are part of something bigger – but something with a heritage of shame and disgrace that must be washed away with greater and greater doses of cultural input from the periphery.

    The leftist has stripped the West of the most fundamental freedom any society could allow its members. The freedom to believe in itself and to feel pride in one’s membership of a larger whole.

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>