Conservatives espouse traditional (or more accurately: eternal) values including the importance of hard work and dedication. Few ask themselves however if this extends to jobs. It should not, mainly because (1) jobs are not actually work in most cases and (2) jobs are the antithesis of what the value of hard work is designed to foster.
In modern Europe and the Americas, everyone — male and female — over the age of majority must attend a job. This means showing up every day from eight to five and being in the office, doing office tasks. Every person gets a cubicle or an office and a computer, maybe a title. They do this until they are sixty-five, then wonder what it meant.
In the average job, very little of actual import is done. This occurs first because most of the assigned activities are pro forma or “make-work,” but more broadly because most business activities are ill-advised or irrelevant, often through the creation of regulatory law.
In this sense, jobs are not “work” per se, or the process of applying oneself to a task. They are the process of attendance, obedience and time-wasting.
This realization leads to the second point, which is that jobs are the antithesis of the “work” described by traditional values. In traditional work, the individual learns how the world works by applying himself or herself to tasks and achieving mastery. It is a method of understanding realism and gaining self-discipline.
Jobs do the opposite. Jobs reward appearance, not actuality, except in a few rare cases. Even in professional fields, the goal is to keep abreast of what others have done and do the same in a certain specific case, and accountability occurs only when one deviates from the commonly accepted practice, even if results are bad. Doctors lose patients, lawyers loses cases, and architects design junk all the time but so long as these are competitive with what others have established as “safe” minimums, no consequences attach.
The constant obsession with staying abreast of standards makes work into an obsession. One must appear to be as devoted as one’s comrades, or be suspected of disloyalty. Further, the worker must demonstrate diligent emulation of public appearance as defined by others, which creates a neurosis of fears about what has not be done as opposed to what needs doing.
In this way, jobs lead away from work, which is results-based. Instead, they present a flight from life itself: an escape from the world of actions and consequences into the purely human world of imitation and social reward. This adds a soul-killing dimension because the acts on which we spend most of our lives are entirely a waste of our time and potential.
Consider it this way: from the years of the early twenties through the mid-sixties, a person spends fifty hours a week, fifty weeks a year, preparing for or attending work. These are the best daylight hours and the most intense moments of their consciousnesses, devoted to something that is both unnecessary and demeaning. They never notice because everyone else is doing it, at least until retirement, where people tend to become aimless and bitter.
If Moses were around today, he would be saying “let my people go” while looking skeptically at a heap of TPS reports.
Michel Houellebecq unveiled the conservative case against jobs in Whatever: jobs ruin our expectation that life will be good, and force us into desperate compensatory measures to feel good, almost all of which lead to destruction of hope for life itself. Jobs make us bitter, alienated and destructive, which mirrors the ressentiment inherent to Leftism, which is why jobs are a creation of the Leftist regulatory state and not the free market, which rewards performance over pro forma activity.
Others have made this case before, such as Louis-Ferdinand Céline, who showed how jobs took over the minds of people and turned them into near-automatons. Indeed, among conservative writers of the early twentieth century, the mind-enslaving specter of “Progress” was seen through the voracious expansion of industry, the collapse of small communities into cities, and the reduction of families into financial units driven by jobs.
People ask, “What would our alternative be?”
The conservative answer is to remove all regulation of the job market and to allow reward to go only to those who can achieve results, which in turn limits labor to the necessary and also radically reduces costs so that people can live on less and be happier. This would lead to less time spent at jobs, because they would be task-driven and not appearance-driven.
In addition, the regulatory state creates a need to keep up with standards to avoid legal liability and government intervention. This directs the focus of management from making things happen to dealing with labor and legal issues. Most managers are not very good at what they do, in part because their real job is to find a way to work with the regulatory state, not get their workers to perform.
If a conservative took over with absolute power, the intermediates between worker and employer like unions, regulations, and legally-defined liabilities would vanish and be handled instead by civil courts. Workers would find themselves as more like contractors, hired to make a certain function happen and rewarded for it. They would have greater pride in their work and most of it would be necessary, as opposed to the current scheme where most of it is not necessary.
Existential concerns would come into play here. When work is not a mandatory time period, but a question of achieving results, people can see the time value of labor and conversely, the monetary value of time. This encourages them to go home, spend time with friends and families and on cultural activities instead of attending extra hours for the sake of appearance.
We need only look at the Dutch model to see how less job means more happiness.
One Dutch woman explicitly states that less time at the job means more liberation and ability to have a positive life. As Macleansreports:
“Every woman in Holland can do whatever she wants with her life,” says Van Haeren, 52, who lives just outside of Rotterdam and rides her bicycle or the train to work three days a week at a police academy, where she counsels students. She has worked part-time her entire career, as have almost all of her friends—married or unmarried, kids or no kids—save one or two who logged more hours out of financial necessity. Van Haeren, who wasn’t married until last year and has no children, says she’s worked part-time “to have time to do things that matter to me, live the way I want. To stay mentally and physically healthy and happy.”
Many women in the Netherlands seem to share similar views, valuing independence over success in the workplace. In 2001, nearly 60 per cent of working Dutch women were employed part-time, compared to just 20 per cent of Canadian women. Today, the number is even higher, hovering around 75 per cent. Some, like Van Haeren, view this as progress, evidence of personal freedom and a commitment to a balanced lifestyle.
The article goes on to show what a world without job mania might look like:
Ellen de Bruin, who patterned her book after Mireille Guiliano’s bestseller French Women Don’t Get Fat, began by defining the stereotypical Dutch woman: naturally beautiful with a no-fuss sense of style, she rides her bike to fetch the groceries, has ample time with her kids and husband, takes art classes in the middle of the week, and spends leisurely afternoons drinking coffee with her friends. She loves to work part-time and does not earn as much as her husband, but she’s fine with that—he takes care of the bills. The book went on to note that Dutch women rank consistently low, compared to those in other Western countries, in terms of representation in top positions in business and government—and rank consistently near the top in terms of happiness and well-being.
When I talk to women who spend half the week doing what they want—playing sports, planting gardens, doing art projects, hanging out with their children, volunteering, and meeting their family friends—I think, yes, that sounds wonderful. I can look around at the busy midweek, midday markets and town squares and picture myself leisurely buying produce or having coffee with friends. In a book released several years ago called Dutch Women Don’t Get Depressed—a parody of French Women Don’t Get Fat—Dutch psychologist Ellen de Bruin explains that key to a Dutch woman’s happiness is her sense of personal freedom and a good work-life balance. But it’s hard to transplant that image to the United States, where our self-esteem is so closely tied to our work.
Conservatives owe it to ourselves to look at the root of tradition, which is reverence for life itself, including the natural environment and the existential need to find excellence and joy in existence. Jobs obliterate this and replace it with Soviet-style grim obedience and grueling time expenditure on the doomed. It is time conservatives got off this chain and began fighting for life itself over the pointless obligation of jobs.
It’s a tough slog being a Republican in DC. Especially, if you are the Washington Post’s Official Republican™. So what does one do to get by? He behaves himself. Wears a sharp bow-tie. He does exactly what The Washington Post’s Official Republican™ is supposed to do.
So how does the bow-tie wearing Official WaPo Republican™ behave? The cucking is eminently predictable. This means he treats other Republicans the way Ramsay Bolton treated his fellow peers. He feeds them to the ravening hounds. Richard Nixon? He has a long shadow…Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. According to Will, Republicans can never be traitors. They can never truly play the Game of Thrones against Liberals. Never mind that the Dems have just all but nominated the real world equivalent of Cersei Lannister in a rigged primary season Tywin would have smiled fondly over. In Willworld, only Republicans have to maintain any code of honor.
And how about that rabble-rouser Ronnie Raygun? He was too risky. As Goerge H. W. Bush put it – “Wouldn’t be prudent.” Reagan of course won two elections and had the Soviet Union teetering on its heels. One would think Will would let bygones get gone. But no, Cucks have got to Cuck.
Will, who has built a highly lucrative career, aided by his special relationship with his sometimes friend, Ronald Reagan, feels highly incensed as if betrayed by his former, special pupil, whom he coached before the Great Debate with Jimmy Carter. Will fears that the Great Communicator has become the Great Disinformer by not adhering to Will’s approved script and will prove no match to the Great Manipulator–Mikhail Gorbachev. So the characteristically unflappable, intellectual guru of the “Far Right,” reacting like a wounded bull seeing the world through his darkly, red-colored glasses, viciously attacks the President.
Will, you see, accused Reagan of not being manly enough when he met with Gorbachev in Iceland to discuss what would later become Perestroika and the end of the Soviet Menace. Like Michael Jackson implying the Fresh Prince of Bel Air had latent homosexual tendencies, George Will was castigating Ronald Reagan over his low testosterone levels in foreign policy.
It would take time before the WaPo needed their Cabana Boy Cuckservative to properly insert dagger in a Republican Party vertebrae, but in the Mid 00’s; Liberalism’s needs again called. Will delivered with a column designed play right into the Democratic Party’s mid-term campaign strategy.
Today, with all three components of the “axis of evil” — Iraq, Iran and North Korea — more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002, the country would welcome, and Iraq’s political class needs to hear, as a glimpse into the abyss, presidential words as realistic as those Britain heard on June 4, 1940.
Conservative columnist George Will told PJM he has officially left the Republican Party and urged conservatives not to support presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump even if it leads to a Democratic victory in the 2016 presidential election. Will…had a message for Republican voters. “Make sure he loses. Grit their teeth for four years and win the White House,” Will said during an interview after his speech at a Federalist Society luncheon.
This is classic Cuckservative behavior. Conservatives are supposed to be with them to the bloody, gore-smeared hilt when they nominate Bob Dole. When factions of the party not up to the WaPo Official Republican™ standard nominate a Reagan or a Trump, the knife is sharpened and aimed at the vertebrae. If one of his can’t win the day, than no Republican can win at all.
This sniveling scribe of Cuckservatism leaving the GOP is a positive sign for the GOP. George Will going away is like having a case of colon cancer go into remission. George Will supporting Gary Johnson is essentially what Gary Johnson deserves for being Gary Johnson. Trump should take pride in having George Will show his campaign the well-rounded pair of heels bought off and paid for by The Washington Post. Again Trump has flushed an enemy of Conservative America out into the open. George Will’s will to pettiness is revealed before all in its repulsive, Cuckservative glory.
I have something dishonorable and worthy of condign reproach to confess and get off my chest. It weighs upon my spirit and yeah, verily pisses in my happy bowl of Cheerios. It brings me great manshame that must be cleansed. Perhaps with fire or a battery acid enema.
I, JPW, am a recovering Cuckservative.
The road back from the abyss has been a long process. Twelve steps are perhaps not enough. Luckily, the stench wafting from these Cuckservatives, fills the nostrils. The high-pitched, unmanful whine of their cloacae fills the Twitter-sphere and reminds me why Cuckservatism and legitimate manhood stand as truly incompatible. You see there was a riot at a Donald Trump campaign stop in San Jose California. Here’s what “Conservative” Neal Stevens had to say about people getting beaten by the turd-chucking, Sandernista Howler Monkeys.
You deserve to be beaten if you join a movement whose leader encourages the beating or protestors like “in the good old days.” — Neil Stevens (@presjpolk) June 3, 2016
Brave words, Mighty Warrior of ASCII. I’ll bet you’ve never had your sorry @ss kicked once in your adult life. Of course you’ve also never had the guts to publically engage in unpopular opinion. You’ve never been in the enemy’s face. You’ve always been beating your puffed-out manful chest from behind the Twitter avatar.
The Trump movement is no more civilized than the radicals protesting them. They deserve each other. — Neil Stevens (@presjpolk) June 3, 2016
Because Trump supporters burn stuff and destroy things all the time. We’ve got lines of ambulances pulling up after every Bernie Sanders rally because of those awful, lowbred Trump-Whiteys. Oh, wait. They pillage entire city blocks in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Kahn. I mean the best you Cucks can do is Chaka Khan. I’m detecting whinging, Low-T nerd jealously in this entire Twitter binge.
I warned you he was a Nazi. You didn’t listen. Now you have street fighting like Weimar Germany. #NeverTrump — Neil Stevens (@presjpolk) June 3, 2016
Thanks for the warning, Neil. We’ll all keep in mind that anytime you disagree too vehemently with the Left you are too right wing to be a viable Conservative. People like you are why terrorism works like hell. What you and idiots like yourself have done is sent the unhinged left a message in big neon lights. Violence solves things. It solves anything that Lefty is too stupid or disoriented to figure out through ratiocination. It also solves the unholy fvck out of anyone who pisses you off.
At least it does when the NRO “Conservative” keyboard cowards, the Sadducees of the Smug; our wonderful allies in the war of leftism sit on the sidelines and wash their hands of the people publically beaten for expressing an opinion athwart the ongoing, generational march of the American Left. That is the message you have just sent via your Twitter account. When they came for The Hookworm People I didn’t care. They weren’t sophisticated and civilized like me so they just had it fvcking coming.
Please warn us all once more about who truly inheres the fundamental philosophy of violent, despotic totalism. Because we definitely should heed that warning like a war-claxon in the night. Especially when it comes from a guy who lost a primary fight, watches a mob brutalize people who peaceably assembled to attend a political rally and then excuses the violence because of his own impotent bitterness over seeing his faction dethroned. That faction lost due to their own unwillingness to protect those who they claimed to look out for. They offered as much of a defense against Nazis as Petain and LaVal offered the Occupied French.
These Cuckservatives care more for Democracy in Iraq than they care for it here in Amerika if they don’t get their cut of the waste, fraud and abuse. These Cuckservatives care more for an uninterrupted flood of immigrants than they do for the plight and the commonweal of the children born here of the sacred blood and soil of The United States of America. They are to conservatism what Judas Iscariot was to the Twelve Apostles.
I don’t ask anyone’s forgiveness for having out of ignorance served in common cause with these enemies of the true American Spirit. The evil I have condoned and abetted cannot be undone. Reliving past debacles and pondering pointless what-ifs is the domain of the low-energy tribes. Sh!tlords don’t mince around expecting any quarter. I just accept that it fills me with abiding sense of shame and regret that I ever defiled myself by breaking bread with these detestable harlot-spawns.
Latin/Asian/African cultures cannot assimilate because culture is a result of the genetics/race of a people. We are a nation founded by Western and Northern European/Scandinavian peoples. Our culture reflects that. When we demand that other races assimilate to our culture, we are essentially asking them to be what they can never genetically be. It is no wonder they are angry and hate us; we are in essence saying that they are not us, which is true.
I used to believe that religion was independent of race but now I realize that is not true. Cultures adopt religion because it reflects the values and understanding of the people. That is why when Christianity is taken to Africa or Latin countries it becomes laden with superstition and is not Christianity at all. Different races will experience God in different ways because each is only capable of understanding God within the limits of their intelligence, which is a product of their genetics. Is it any wonder that the Middle East is Islamic? Their religion fits who they are as a people, genetically speaking.
This is a fundamental split among those who are not-Left. Among our population, most are hard in denial about the fact that our civilization is imploding. Of those who do recognize the decline, most have panicked and are looking for an easy answer; this is more denialism. Of this type of post-denial denialism, most choose a visually distinctive method: God fanatics, race fanatics, economic fanatics and eugenics fanatics. Each group is looking for a single principle to act like Leftist ideology and apply in all circumstances.
God fanatics. These are exemplified by this comment from the thread:
There is nothing left to preserve. We have abandoned the God of our fathers and are rightly judged for our sins. When we return to the Lord Jesus Christ in our families and local communities, we can then begin to see restoration of some form.
God fanatics argue for this because it lets them off the hook to do anything. They cannot force others to come to God, so they’ll go to church twice as hard and lament how no one follows God, then watch their society further crumble away while they do nothing. This is a typical conservative behavior: put your head down, work hard, pay those taxes, and lament the impossibility of something impossible instead of fixing the obvious problem.
Race fanatics. These people recognize a problem — that diversity is paradoxical in design and so will produce collapse — but instead of accepting that difficult thought, settle in for scapegoating one or more minority groups. By implication, after the great racial purge, everything else can continue as before, so the highest number of pro-democracy pro-socialist liberals can be found in this group. They deny that diversity did not happen in a vacuum, and it started 200 years ago or more, so we have to find the cause of that or all the sadistic racial holocausts in the world cannot save us from diversity, much less all the other problems.
Economic fanatics. These come in two types: socialist and capitalist. The New Right in Europe makes a lot of excellent observations but then comes out in support of European socialism, which creates a society that is insufferable because it is regimented and forces everyone to keep doing repetitive make-work in order to pay for the welfare state in classic “We Are The Robots” style jerky motions and cancelled eyes attire. Europe is miserable and has been for centuries because of the growing state and its inevitable tendency to enslave people to boring, pointless jobs and ugly, tedious cities. We are breeding ourselves into robotic zombie morons in order to pay for all those bennies, but your average European would rather die by rape than give up the welfare state. On the other hand, there are many American conservatives who believe that all of our problems could be solved by pure capitalism. Like the race fanatics, they take part of the solution and make it into the whole, which ignores all the other problems and their solutions.
Eugenics fanatics. Like most of the above, these have a partially correct response but miss the point by making it into an ideology like Leftism. Yes, Idiocracy is upon us but it has always been upon us. 90% of humanity by the ancient reckoning were of the thrall-nature and required telling what to do or they would screw it up and destroy good things for their own idiocy. The point of eugenics is to allow as many of the fools as possible to perish, but that by itself would not solve our problem, since even smart people make stupid decisions when assembled into herds.
All of the above are trying to make conservatism into Leftism. They want an ideology, or one simple principle that is applied universally to all people equally. The core of this belief is the socially-pleasing notion that all people are equal, when in fact since the dawn of time most people have been idiots who if not oppressed, destroy a civilization as surely as a leak in your intestine kills you with E. Coli poisoning.
“Return to God” is not the answer. Nor is “work hard and get ahead,” nor is “kill the Negroes/Jews.” These are all scapegoats and surrogates for the actual answer, which is to rebuild civilization. That requires four elements of a platform that I have identified elsewhere, which are (briefly): aristocracy, nationalism, positive incentives (incl. capitalism) and transcendental goals. Nationalism enables rule by culture, not Government; aristocracy gives us the best chance of good leadership; positive incentives reward competence instead of trying to protect the foolish from themselves, and a transcendental goal keeps us improving in quality.
Conservatives have failed for 200 years by relying on stupid fictions like “Return to God” that are basically a way of avoiding personal responsibility for fixing the problem. When you give up on an actual solution, you need to find a surrogate, and this is why “Return to God” — like racial fanaticism, socialist lunacy and raving eugenicism — is immensely popular.
Hint for the wise: avoid anything which is broadly popular, as that inevitably means that it is a form of denial of reality, and instead, a pleasant human fiction that causes warm fuzzy feelings as your society and future slide downward into a third-world abyss.
I break with the alt-right crowd on a number of issues, abortion, might makes right morality, religion and aesthetic, but I feel that their specific argument in regard to racial/ethnic differences as they effect social order are valid. I, for my part, would add foundational religion to that list as I find credence in Carl Schmitt’s observation, “Political concepts are just secularized theological concepts.” Religion is not part of culture, but Culture a function of religion. The importance of Foundational Religion > Culture per say.
No, ten thousand times no: culture creates religion. All religions are interpretations of a naturalistic truth, or in other words, are descriptions by individual people of a symbolic representation of a truth that not all can detect and even those who can detect can only perceive in varying degrees. All implementations of religion are in turn interpretations of that religion. It is nonsense to say that there is “Christianity,” unless one is treating it as an ideology and assuming that the words in the book control people, which is nonsense as they will interpret those words as convenient for them, and to the degree that they are capable.
It is not accidental that Christianity in Mexico becomes a type of idol-worship and mysticism, or that in Haiti, Christianity becomes hybridized with Vodou. Third world populations choose third world levels of religion, just as they choose third-world style governments, personal behavior, and levels of social order. The people make the interpretation and no matter what you write down, they will convert it into what fits their own agenda, because — per Dunning-Kruger — this is what they understand and where their understanding stops.
As I have said before, you either put the best people in charge or watch as we are all oppressed by the incompetence of the rest. People in groups, even smart people, enact lunacy and stupidity.
Culture in turn arises from genetics (and also shapes genetics; like many things in nature, the two bootstrap one another). It is not as simple as IQ, but also involves the amount of vision and transcendental thinking among the group. An original culture like that of Europe aspires to something above the merely tangible, and this is why it rose above even those cultures which seemed ahead in intelligence, wealth and power like Asia.
Religion then arises out of culture and genetics alike. For that reason, any “return to God” will become a weapon of the enemy unless it is preceded by a restoration of health in culture, genetics, leadership, opportunity and transcendental goals.
Human beings are incredibly irrational, biased, imperfect creatures. We are really, really bad at following the truth wherever it leads.
His second sentence is as accurate as anything that can be said, except for the implied equality of “we” — human beings vary greatly, and some are good at following the truth where it leads.
His first sentence is where he goes wrong. Our “rationality” is what leads us astray every time. It enables us to make symbolic conclusions based on gritty, complex data. This eliminates all consideration except the immediate and human in a utilitarian context. This is where we go wrong.
He then proceeds to make what I am calling “the STEM illusion”:
The brilliance of some of our classical liberal institutions, especially science at the university, is that it institutionalized disconfirmation. […] “We in science, we don’t really see the truth unbiasedly. We each put out our models, our theories, we try our hardest to prove we are right. And other scientists say ‘no, you didn’t see, this is wrong’ and then we have to defend it. That’s the way it works, institutionalized disconfirmation. It has made us as a species as a culture vastly smarter than we could be if we were just individuals deciding things for ourselves,” he continued.
And we are back to Leftism: he believes that a System can save us, instead of pointing out that this system worked when it was in the hands of 130+ IQ aristocrats but now, in the hands of the proles, it is nothing but multiple fumbles in an attempt to advance the career of each researcher.
No, Mr. Haidt, for all the good that you write, the above is wrong, although in service of a good thing (the idea of open debate on any topic). We are not all equal. And no System can compensate for that failing, just as merely sending everyone to church or killing off other races will not solve our problems, either.
You show me a good loser. I’ll show you a loser. – Cameron Newton, QB, Carolina Panthers
Canadians are generally decent, soft-spoken people who offend virtually nobody. It doesn’t make them weak or unmanly excepting the subset whom I’ll speak of below. The Tories, Canada’s Cuckservative alternative!* Leave them alone with a knife and a 5th of Canadian Mist and they’ll never need birth control again. Once a supposedly conservative political party no longer stands for the proposition that a legitimate, traditional marriage involves the union of one woman and one man under the auspices of God the Creator; I can’t think of any particular aspect of Western Culture or societal values that they still give a rat’s rear end about preserving. Their own jobs and pensions maybe?
But it was not just how they went about it that signaled a changing party. It was what they did. While most attention focused on the resolution dropping the party’s insistence that marriage was “the union of one man and one woman,” that was far from the only noteworthy decision of the convention. For the Conservative party to vote to decriminalize marijuana, to take but one example, would not so long ago have been unthinkable.
And how did this capitulation make them feel? Liberated. They could have peace. What utter baloney. Canadian Cuckservatives are only liberated because the leftist rape phallus has temporarily shot its wad. They don’t have to throw in the towel – not when it would be more fun if they used it to go hang themselves. This is exactly what they are doing. Auto-erotic asphyxiation on the installment plan.
The Revolution™, you see, will never reach an end. They will have peace until the Thinking People need another dildo to distract the mob. I can garun-fricken-teeya they will be stuck with the tab the next time the eternal Progressive Visigoth Holiday runs out of beer. There is no such a thing in Realityland as the gubbermint dime. There is always an implicit (or real) bayonet at some poor producer’s throat for every last bleeding shekel of largesse. The vice will invariably be tightened time and again, as long as there is some discernable delta between Canada and Venezuela. As long as lootable fuel remains, they can always get made to once more feel the Bern.
This brings us around to where we pretty much should just acknowledge Cam Newton was one hell of a lot more politically astute than either Mitt Romney or John McCain. When a man advertises himself as the political equivalent of a boytwat, then the political equivalent of a priapic phallus will smell it on the wind. A “leader” like a McCain or a Romney is only necessary or wanted for something that can occur in the backseat of any Coupe Deville in five minutes or less. This tells the life story of the modern US GOP and the Canadian Tories as well. Cuckservativism Is Suicide. The Conservatives throughout North America deserve far better.
Watching mainstream Neoreaction and outside-Right sources walk the same path as cuckservatives evokes visceral pain in the experienced observer, but it is our fate, because the same power that subverted mainstream conservatism has triumphed in the underground Right. You can tell where the divide is whenever people speak of “the Cathedral.”
To those who are still trapped in the Leftist paradigm, the Cathedral is a group of shady people who magically seized control of the West, and if we just dethroned these bad people, the good times would resume. This fantasy resembles the storyline of a 1980s film where the outcasts unify and beat back the arrogant popular kids!
And yet, if we dig deeper, that fantasy can be found elsewhere, such as in West Side Story or even earlier, in a relatively unbroken line going back to the dawn of time. Stories which invert reality — telling us what is plainly true is not true, and that there is an easier way to success, glory and moral good than what is evidently necessary — are always popular because they play to the fears of insufficiency that individuals have.
Reality-inversion may be the oldest successful non-essential product. Once there is food, and the plague and famine are not raging immediately nearby, humans turn to distractions: over-indulgence of wine, prostitutes, and fantasies about how they are succeeding by failing. In fact, they are failing by succeeding; their society has beaten back nature enough that Darwinian rules no longer seem to apply, and humanity has failed to adopt a corresponding quality control standard.
What is ironic is that the Cathedral gains its power by offering reality-inversion fantasies (RIFs), much as mainstream outside-Right movements gain their audience by doing the same. The RIF for the Cathedral is pacifism, isolationism and freedom; for the mainstream underground Right, it is gated communities without minorities and feminists so that everyone can easily commute to their entry level tech jobs. Both are the same fantasy retold in different forms.
The audience defines the product; whoever offers that product will be rewarded, unless held back by those with more mental power. This means that like weeds and parasites in nature, a new Cathedral springs up wherever human society is established — unless it is suppressed. Other self-organizing forms of parasitic human behavior like gangs, prostitutes/pimps, beggar colonies and hobo camps create themselves the same way. People want these things, or at least, some people do.
Self-organizing power structures and “dark organizations” — anti-patterns for success that come about as a result of organizing humans in groups — are little studied compared to the patterns which reflect how we like to think of ourselves, which involve formal organization and bureaucratic success. But these are the key to the human species: wherever we go, the civilization pattern goes, and it eventually kills civilization. This tells us that there is an inherent pitfall to the civilization process that must be counteracted to make it work, much like rhubarb needs to be cooked thoroughly or it is poisonous.
If conservatism has a virtue it is that it understands civilization beyond the face value formal definitions issued by civilization itself, because conservatism distrusts civilization. Is the rhubarb cooked enough? a cautious cook might ask; similarly, the conservative asks whether civilization has been suppressed, oppressed, beaten down, trimmed back and subjugated enough for its payload — a human group — to survive. Civilization invents pretense, which is the form these “face value” (i.e. deceptive) notions take, but all face value notions are like the speech of a salesman: designed to obscure faults, and induce the buyer to succumb to the various pitfalls of human mentation that allow us to see what is not there, and ignore what is.
If conservatism has a vice, it is that often conservatives confuse the beating-down of tangible objects with having beaten the intangible disease within; this process — like scapegoating, talismans, devil dolls, neurosis, superstition and other Vodoun-style symbolic projection — allows the human group to “cast out” its own disease and project them onto something else which can be defeated. But the real defeat must occur within our souls, which is what Nietzsche and Evola chide us with each time someone comes up with an easy externally-based solution for human ills.
The paradox of this human illness is that it infects individuals, but takes effect in groups, a process called Crowdism which is a form of collectivized individualism. Individuals want the right to deny reality, but that right can only be granted by the group, so those individuals organize a breakaway group. This group becomes more popular that the over-group because it has lower standards for membership, namely “demand the same thing we do and you’re in the gang.” This cult or gang-like dark organization then pervades and dominates the host over-group.
Where my own writing is unique is that I join this Darwinian/Nietzschean view with a classic Homeric/Christian view of evil, namely that human hubris or pretense leads to self-delusion through the Burroughsian method of “control,” and I tie it into a Pynchonian idea, which is that we can see this process as part of entropy. This sounds like a lot of buzzwords, but in fact it unites a number of themes we have seen time and again in human society: many options presented, society pulls itself apart, and our response is to impose more stern standards and punishments, at which point the opposite of what we intended occurs, like pouring water on an oil fire.
Entropy occurs as a process of life. The more possibilities exist, the less predictable activity is… to a point. When too many options exist, the differences between them are erased in a process called heat-death where any option produces about the same result as any other. This explains the arc-like or circular pattern of most things in nature; at first, they expand; then, their growth flowers in every direction; then, they die or at least most of them dies; finally, they are reborn in a reduced form consisting of those which flowered in a realistic way. There is a Path after all… it is not obvious to all.
Naturally this provokes in our minds the thought that to limit entropy, we need to limit the number of options available. Very true, but also wrong, because limiting options alone will not work in the same way stern authority does not. Unintended consequences arise, which is that people work around strong authority. This is why Darwinian natural selection works: centralized order based on before-the-fact censorship fails, but order united by principle and applied in after-the-fact selection always works. Conservatives hate socialism and tyranny alike for this reason because they are before-the-fact selection, which means that they are as easily gamed as any other form of face value order.
The only solution that remains is internal order. This is much like the self-discipline that athletes use to reach Olympic status, or the self-control of a sniper, the deliberate forceful thinking of (good) writer, or the contemplated movements of a craftsman that allow him to achieve immense precision, even timing the motions of his tools between breaths to avoid jarring. Self-discipline allows us to see reality and then to act toward the best possible options that present themselves to us, which generally consist of that which has been tried and observed before and the best results conserved.
Here however we encounter a bootstrapping problem. Unlike the self-organizing chaos of Crowdism/the Cathedral, making civilization arise — or return, in our case! — requires both inner and outer force. That is, some with inner force must gain control of the rest, beat back the individualism and its collective, and then implement standards which make people rise to their best possible level of performance. All good leadership and management consists of this process, and yet it is not popular among humans because it tells each of us that we do not know what is best for us in all cases, and therefore, “freedom” and “liberty” are not solutions but distractions. That rankles the Ego.
To solve our bootstrapping problem, we need strong leadership that can nurture the excellence within us. This shows us that in civilization there are only two options: either the best oppress the rest (Rightism), or the rest oppress the best (Leftism). Leftism is a method of the latter, which is actually Crowdism, much as Neoreaction is a method of the former; both are intellectualizations designed to explain the core principle behind each direction. Like most symbolic realities, they do not translate literally; this is why Leftism always changes when in power, and why Neoreaction is mostly talking points to get us to compare possible other options to the present monolithic Leftism ruling the West.
I write this down in a handy form in case I get squashed by a bus or die of the Zika virus or some other inglorious and yet all too normal end. It is here as a precursor to a forthcoming book which explains these ideas in more detail, and serves as a warning against the Crowdism within, especially in Right-wing movements. There is a reason it has subverted every institution it has attacked, and Right-leaning ones are especially vulnerable. The Cathedral is us, like the enemy is us, until we apply discipline to our inner choices and head toward the light instead.
This question came up recently in a discussion of conservatism where the phrase “1788 conservative” was used. This one floats around at the periphery, but I have heard it in real life as well as on the internet, and think it deserves elucidation.
The name “1788 conservative” refers to this:
“My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.” ― Julius Evola
The French Revolution began in 1789, and so “1788 conservatives” are those who see this as a horrible error and want to go back to the point before the error, and try again.
We tend to see the French Revolution as formalizing the decay of the West. The decay existed long before that, but picked up when political and military pressures weakened our aristocracy and our society did not support them. Rules made on paper are never good, but having enlightened and intelligent people in charge always works.
The aristocracy made this happen at every level: kings, dukes, and lords. These served as a mediating force on growth and finance, kept most of the land intact as hunting preserves, conserved culture and religion, and avoided the unbroken string of idiotic decisions and pointless wars that democracy has embarked upon.
The term “Right-wing” came about after the French Revolution to describe those who thought the ancient order before the Revolution was a better idea than the revolution; after that, “conservatives” — or those who accept the new government of the post-Revolution years, but want to conserve as much as possible of what went before — and “liberals” who accept the ideals of the Revolution but want it applied through conservative methods, became the only options.
1788 conservatives merely take conservatism to its root: we conserve that which has worked best in the past as proven by history, which is a society with heavy cultural influence regulating liberty, aristocracy in the lead, no government and no safety net, and a tendency toward excellence, divinity and other transcendental goals. We are the most honest form of conservative and the least politically correct and socially acceptable in a democratic regime.
What makes 1788 conservatives unique is that we recognize the inter-connected nature of aspects of civilization. We cannot deconstruct and separate ideas, as the democrats do, from their effect and the existential experience of life in that civilization. Leadership is connected to values and all is vested in the organic nation, or the people born of a similar root with similar abilities and inclinations which form the basis of culture and values.
In our degenerated time, where most of the people who should be able to think exist in a one-dimensional cartoon of ideological thinking, these ideas are mostly lost and forgotten. However, as liberal democracy continues to fail despite our patching it up more than Windows 10, the brightest lights among our people are reconsidering the era of kings as a future and not the distant past.
Most political critique takes a look at political goals and ideals, but my own path has led to looking at politics as a manifestation of human pathologies. Humans everywhere have similar responses to the task of adapting to life, and those responses each show a type of strategy. Looking into the nature of those strategies reveals quite a bit.
One strategy is individualism, or the demand that society make the individual its goal and allow the individual to interrupt the goals of power with rights and an independence from judgment of individual internal quality, a philosophy known as “egalitarianism” or the demand for equality. This is individualistic because it protects the individual from responsibility for the results of his actions in the world.
In groups, individuals form collectives to defend this illusion because illusions need defense by some motivation other than “it just works,” and only in the combined emotional response of the group can such a justification be found. Ideology amounts to feelings and appearances, not a history of results in reality. It can only be applied by a fearful, chanting mob.
The problem with ideology is that, even when totally wrong, it cannot be opposed because it is nice, good and how successful people behave according to any society infected with it. By the principle of reflexivity, those who oppose it are presumed to be mean, evil/bad and failures, which is a byproduct of the moral binary that is created by declaring something arbitrary “good” and separating goodness from results in reality.
This weakens conservatives most of all because our intention is always to be good, and we easily confuse the symbol/appearance of good for the goodness itself. In a social context, symbols seem like reality; this error compounds an earlier one, which is that in a social context, emulating what has succeeded in the past creates the appearance of success and is therefore valued more than success by results.
Conservatives these days want to be good. They do not want to be seen as inegalitarian, racist and sexist. Unfortunately, by the same principle of reflexivity, that makes them adopt liberal views and then use conservative methods to achieve those liberal ends. The last 102 years has shown us that disaster unfolding.
I suggest that instead, conservatives aspire to be right, i.e. correct according to reality. Our morality is not arbitrary; it arises from (1) the actions taken by humans that produce the best results and (2) the implications of any divine design of our world, because to see the world as sensible is to realize that the best adaptations to it constitute a parallel response to its design.
Where have we heard this before? Why, in literature: The Odyssey by Homer. In it, Homer advances a moral argument: “goodness” is nonsense, and arrogance is our human problem. He hints that goodness may be part of this arrogance. And then he shows us a better way: while goodness is measured by method, actual good is measured by results, and the methods used to achieve those results do not matter.
To take that to an extreme, think of any situation where it is necessary to take one action to save the entire thing from going belly-up. If you are on the Titanic, and see the iceberg ahead but no one else pays attention, is it morally good to assault and disable the captain and steer away from the iceberg?
This is the real binary choice of life: do what is necessary, or allow entropy to win.
Of course it is most moral to punch out that captain and steer away from certain death. You have a choice: let everyone die, or let the captain get punched. It is even more moral to murder him in cold blood than let him steer into that iceberg. In fact, in theory, it is more moral to kill any number of people short of the whole group of people on the boat in order to stop the collision. You will still have saved lives, since the iceberg is certain death.
In The Odyssey, Odysseus returns home after two decades to find that his house is filled with suitors of his wife, Penelope. They are numerous and armed, and likely to simply kill him if he shows his face. He will be outnumbered, after all. He faces a choice: do what is good, and fight them like a man, or do what is effective, and hoodwink them and disarm them, then kill them all.
He kills them all. In cold blood, with no fairness or pretense of goodness. It is outright murder without remorse. If he did it now, we would arrest Odysseus and categorize him as a spree killer, then lock him up for life. Our moral sensibilities are appalled at the outright slaughter… and that is what the author intended.
Writers do not communicate by showing us halfway points. They show us extremes, and situations where we are inherently conflicted as to what to do and struggling with the question. The point of this is that when shown the extremes, we can extrapolate back to day-to-day events, but going the other direction does not work.
Conservatives want to be good, and so they would very obediently say, “Oh no, we should never do that. Killing those men in cold blood is wrong, as my Bible and all my friends tell me. The government says so too, and while I normally do not trust government, it just wrenches my gut and soul to have to kill all those people.”
That gut reaction — based in fear — occurs because we project ourselves into any victim. This is the root of equality, too. When we feel like we could be a victim, we come up with the easy lie that everyone is the same and therefore, we all deserve protection. Equally. Even though those who are victims are generally those who engage in foolish or parasitic behavior like the suitors of Penelope.
Heartiste, a sometimes-under-acknowledged contributor to the theory behind Neoreaction and the Alternative Right, offers his own analysis of the paper “The weirdest people in the world?” which points out that Western Europeans are unique worldwide in having this disease.
Unfortunately, the scientists have gotten it all wrong as usual.
The oddness of the West is not that odd when one considers that no society exists out there which is as wealthy and powerful as the West. We went further; when you go further, you encounter new challenges that others have not.
Blaming manorialism is comical. Manorialism was an extension of the feudal system, itself an informal method of maintaining the caste system. Manorialism encouraged the production of an aristocracy who were above the rest, and then confined the rest to duties suited to their castes.
You who have read your history, which excludes all scientists and STEM-types, will recall that among castes, there are only two that take active roles: the kshatriya (Carls) and brahmins (Jarls). Everyone else is told what to do because they lack the judgment skills and moral ability to do anything else. Under the manorial system, Carls were knights and freeholders, Jarls were aristocrats, and everyone else was a land-renting peasant. This kept the peasants from having power because, as said above, they would simply muck it up as history shows us they have.
What changed this situation was the rise of the middle classes. These people, who made their money (meritocratic! hard-working!) in trade, were not aristocrats and nor were they Carls. They were high-ranking peasants for the most part, and their modus operandi was to seize power from the aristocrats. Middle classes arise wherever there are not enough aristocrats to keep power, and after the Black Plague and the Mongol Plague, Europe was short on leaders.
Originally, society suppressed such people because their judgment tended to be terrible. First, they were peasants, although often of mixed-caste origins; second, they were accustomed to a merchant’s eye view of the world: products are sold, and the most popular products get ahead, and that determines the direction of society. Who needs a king, right?
The changes to the economy created a situation that made niceness valuable. Good merchants are nice, or inoffensive, if we want to use the accurate word for it. Pacifistic, they accept everyone and avoid conflict because conflict is risky and expensive. They oppose caste systems and strong leadership because those get in the way of unlimited commerce.
Even more, they are passive. They offer products and others buy them. They do not take bold action, but follow the herd. They make conformity into a virtue. As a result, the people who succeed are those who behave like merchants. Real men go off to low-paid, high-risk jobs in the military or exploring the wilderness, and the guys who get all the girls are the fat merchants with their steady paychecks and low risk.
What we see here is an inevitable pitfall of social success. A successful society becomes a rich society, and so its peasants and freeholders turn to merchants. Merchants then take over through a process akin to democracy or capitalism unchecked by strong leadership, and soon all of society represents the merchant model: the most popular product wins, and reality be damned.
Manorialism restrains this process by keeping freeholders and peasants connected to the land and small local communities. Cities, especially port cities, give rise to the regime of the merchants. And over time, the shift is not so much genetic as social. To succeed, you must be nice. We give it names like “bourgeois” and “conformist” when really, it is merely the merchant morality overtaking the rest.
Niceness lives on in conservatives through “good.” As Nietzsche says, there are no facts, only interpretations, and this applies to the Bible, too. As interpreted by merchants, it becomes a document of merchant values, even though it says nothing of the sort. But conservatives take the Bible and business most seriously, and so they, too, become like the merchants.
The only solution for this is to burn it out with hard, cold Realism. A total war can do it, or a mass famine, but even more so, we can do this by ending the idea of “nice” and “good” as determined by methods, and turn our assessment back to results. The good man is not the man who achieves a nice appearance, but the guy who makes results turn out for the best.
That in itself is the anti-merchant, the reversal of W.E.I.R.D. and nice, and a freeing of humanity from the chains of false goodness which, like our false elites, arises from the mass impulses of humans once given wealth and power beyond their abilities, which is a form of arrogance, as Homer warned us against.
There’s a lot of confusion out there mainly because nothing can be trusted to be what it is; all has been redefined as political objects.
As a result, people are casting around for a Grand Unification Theory that can make sense of their world. For example, the quest to define liberalism plagues many:
This situation seems to be assisted by the pervasive idea that what happens in society is a matter of collecting a group of ideas together (a political platform) and then advocating for your leaders to then implement the collection of wishes which then come true. So a Libertarian will make a list as so: I want liberty for all, weed legalization, free exit, small governance etc, while a designated socialist will demand a list as so: equality, social security, social justice etc.
Under the guise of criticizing liberalism, this is a liberal idea: let everyone do whatever they want and somehow the best result will come about.
It ignores the fact that all learning comes from asserting that some ideas are superior to others.
It confuses the methods of enforcing liberalism with its fundamental idea, which is egalitarianism, or the notion that all should be able to do whatever they want without criticism from others.
Look further for its actual core:
The starting point in all of this is firmly not in the “what does/ did happen.” The original cathedral analysis (not the nonsense it has become) was firmly in the “what did/ does happen” category, De Jouvenel’s analysis is firmly in the “what did/ does happen” category, Carlyle’s analysis of the effects of non-governance is firmly in the “what did/ does happen” category. All of these things lead to unpleasant, but deeply necessary conclusions.
In other words, embrace entropy, because we should not pay attention to better methods, but whatever most people normally do, even if this is known to lead to breakdown and decay.
The above philosophy is fundamentally indistinguishable from mainstream liberalism. Let people do whatever they want, and criticize no individual’s choices, because we are all equal.
In other words, it affirms the fundamental idea of liberalism.
We know (or should know by now)conservatism is a progressive offshoot that is younger than progressivism, and all this claims of classical liberalism are just attempts to resurrect an older form of leftism.
This confuses libertarianism with all conservatism, ignoring the large differences between the two.
Luckily the article takes a twist toward the interesting:
So white nationalism is a collection of platforms with a central premise of declaring that ethnic interests should be secured to varying degrees, whilst neoreaction seems to be a collection of libertarian, rationalist and paleo-con platforms with no real rhyme or reason plus an advocate of extreme non-governance via AI and/ or automated constitutions (the ultimate magic “should” and “must” political thinking.)
Here he nails it out of the park: all modern movements are built in the form of liberalism. They seek to provide a System that manages our future through automated means like rules and voting, simply so that we do not need to violate egalitarianism and appoint some to positions of power simply because they are better people.
As this shows us, the only escape from the modern time is the escape from Systems. These are based on what “should” be not in a practical/realistic context like nationalism, but in an emotional/social one like Leftism, because only a super-simplified way of life like ideology can unite such a chaotic system.
The only solution is escape from Systems into the wilds of culture-based leadership (nationalism) and leadership by the best (aristocracy). This eliminates the “should,” and produces the realistic, and even more importantly, the aspirational.
But it requires a slightly more complex analysis than the “finding the right answer is liberalism” introduction used in the original blog post.
The post Eternal September internet revealed its true purpose as memetic churn: it funnels the antagonism of our world’s basement NEETs, daytime TV watchers, retirees, apartment-bound disability recipients, bored cubicle slaves and welfare nodules into an emotional amplifier. People post concerns in simple catchy forms and the crowd rages with a new fire.
Everything has a weakness and a strength, and the two are usually the converse of one another. The internet echo chamber does a good job of putting its finger on the fears of modern people, and a terrible job at coming up with solutions, since what matters above and beyond all else is that its “solutions” be memetic. That means: simple, engaging, and emotionally satisfying.
Real life is different from how most people experience emotions: emotional satisfaction comes at the end of accomplishment. The farmer lighting his pipe, looking over the freshly-plowed fields, and thinking how proud and pleased he is; the artist looking over his creations, having finally spoken his muse. But on the internet, emotional satisfaction is what makes the crowd buzz, and it comes from the untested thoughts that seem to beat back those fears.
On Amerika the blog, I and other writers have taken a radical perspective: that conservatism is the root of all sane thinking about how to make society, and that our retreat from it has created “Amerika” the society: a Soviet-style system where a single path to success exists, and that is through using the ideology of the Crowd to please others and thus be selected as the most capable. All of our incompetent elites got ahead this way.
Conservatism takes another perspective. For method it chooses consequentialism, or results mattering more than methods, which includes the idea that performance comes after reward, which is the inversion of socialism. For goals it chooses a transcendental outlook, or the notion that we should aim for the best in all things, using consequentialism to figure out what works but then choosing what achieves excellence over the merely adequate.
Already this blog post is too complex for at least ninety-nine out of one hundred people on the internet. It will never achieve memetic status because it is both too complex and not emotionally satisfying. Over the wires, or in a crowd, it will be shouted down and replaced with an ikon of a cute bunny screaming SIEG HEIL.
But what people need to know is this: conservatism is the most extreme “ideology” of them all, mainly because it is not an ideology — a way around reality, based in what we wish were true instead of what is — but a look at Reality as our guiding force. Conservatism is extremist common sense. We are a species like any other; we must adapt to our environment; if giving choices between a good, better and best option, choose the best!
What has happened (as usual) is that humans cannot distinguish between essence and instance. The essence of conservatism is an idea; the instance is any person, group or product (books, movies, blogs) that claims to be conservative. The instance does not change the essence. It is the other way around: the essence determines what the instance should be.
And yet… our “conservatives” seem very far from any meaningful definition of conservative. “Conservatism has failed!” wails the internet hype machine. Or is it that our conservatives are simply not conservative, which means by definition that they are liberal, and that their failure is part of the vast decay of society through liberalism?
By Occam’s Razor and any other meaningful analysis, that explanation makes a lot more sense.
Most people do not realize that conservatism exists only because liberalism exists. Before liberalism, all was shades of conservatism, which has plenty of internal texture and variation. After the French Revolution, conservatives were those who arose to preserve the best of what had come before, in anticipation that — as de Tocqueville and others analyzed — the Great Liberal Experiment would collapse.
As lore has it, the conservatives sat on the Right and the revolutionaries on the Left in the French National Assembly. Thus Leftists and Rightists were born, with Rightists including both socially-acceptable conservatives and what I call “primal conservatives” who hung on to their aristocratic, manorial and tribal traditions. “Liberals” were the conservatives who believed in a slow retreat through libertarianism.
In the current day, a steady leftward shift has left us with a social outlook that demonizes most true conservative positions. Remember, to find a conservative position, you look at (1) results and (2) what produces the best results.
This gives us the four pillars of any sensible conservatism:
Nationalism. Internationalism produces cosmopolitan port cities that seem endearing at first until one realizes that they are filthy, venal, corrupt places with no culture and no purpose in life except mercantile exchange with consumers. Nationalism works and makes happy nations because they rule themselves with culture and not government, police and propaganda (media). Conservatives are more extreme than Hitler on this, but refuse to endorse his violent solutions for other reasons, namely that injustice and cruelty beget more of the same and thus produce bad results without need.
Aristocracy. Most people are stupid monkeys who have no idea of what they need versus what they want. The only solution is to put our smartest people — who are one in a hundred — in charge, because otherwise, we have oppression by the stupidest. If we are going to have oppression, let it at least be competent! Aristocracy includes monarchism, a network of lesser aristocrats who are more like a Greek college than a social club, manorialism anda caste system, and a total abolishment of the State and its nit-picking rules.
Capitalism. Sometimes you get a good, better and best choice, and sometimes you merely get a choice between bad and worse. Is capitalism bad? It depends how it is implemented; when balanced by the forces above capitalism works out well, but in the hand of low-caste merchants it turns into a third world style bazaar (the USA is merely a highly organized, corporate version of this). But every alternative to capitalism is a straight plunge into pure dysfunction, and socialism, government-protected unions and welfare states are proven parasite magnets.
A transcendental goal. In addition to the general ideal of transcendentalism in conservatism, every civilization needs a transcendental goal, or some aspiration to the purest things — the good, the beautiful and the true; excellence; divinity — in life, which means they are never tangible but can be attributes of things. You cannot hold an excellent in your hand, and no accomplishment is ever a definition of excellence, but the best choices can be said to be excellent, and those are the ones worth fighting for.
Our civilization is in decline. A thousand years ago, the above were recognized as common sense on the level of “do not defecate in your soup before eating.” Then again, the people who had to understand them were the top 1% of society by inner excellence, meaning intelligence and moral character. The herd has never understood anything and never will because it is biologically incapable of doing so.
Are the above fascist or Soviet? No: they are more extreme than fascism, and are honest methods unlike the Soviet approach which is to demand unrealistic ideals so that everyone must fall in line to obey the parasite State, which derives its power from having bought off the proles and thus harnessed The Revolution as a means to permanent tyranny. Fascism and National Socialism are degraded conservatism — hybridized with liberalism — just like libertarianism, neoconservatism and tankinis.
The common tropes of the nu-internet are that conservatism is dead and nationalism has taken over, or that conservatism is inferior to traditionalism. These are just posing. Nationalism and traditionalsm are subsets of the conservative idea. The point we must focus on is that if we remove the Leftist ideology, we are left with common sense, and from that flow all of the possibilities for good. Without it, we are left (heh heh) on the path to decline and fall.