Democracy destroys intellectual integrity because at some point, parties strategize to get votes instead of maintaining a consistent position.1 This same condition blights conservatism, which stands for an unchanging ideal but will always be tempted to pursue the more popular notions of individualism and group solidarity through compromise, both of which erode meaning and make conservatives into de facto Leftists.
For a recent example, we can look at neoconservatives and their curious transition from conservatives to Right-themed Trotskyists. A neoconservative preserves the customs of an older generation but never the principle or purpose these customs are meant to convey. This means that the neoconservatives of today are preserving the Leftism of a generation ago.
A true conservative conserves the purpose, heritage, principles, and customs of his society at its founding, keeping these consistent over the years by making gradual if any changes. These different elements support each other: without purpose, customs become a social protocol of sorts2 and principles become ideology. Neoconservatives understand this3 but embark on it anyway in order to gain more political power.
The premise of this “intellectual” conservatism is foremost, not only managerial4 but prosocial.5 It, comfortable in its intergenerational power, sees the founding fathers’ system as something of its own destiny, the manifest destiny of a constitution, a civility by which to deliberate, sell its green eggs and ham so you will learn to love it. However, the left has another idea in mind. The left plays inside the rules only as it suits them while also creating these rules, both formally6 and unwritten7 or arbitrary.8
The formal side of the rules9 make people happy10 because it is hard to live without and they are severely disenchanted11 — something we find in as much a dream-job as we do our home-life and why most have both. Thus, we seek an alternative, both good12 and bad13. These however no longer accompany or complete the belonging, but even trample14 or tent for days to replace it, for a war effort15 or the same everything others appear to have16 both materially, atomistically, emotionally17 through fear and love of reward. It is also the root of a much later immigrant generation’s strive towards disassimilation18, amidst what Marx however unoriginally obvious, called alienation19 and it brings20 us the unwritten anyway.
It is also what drives the Blue Lives Matter movement. For, we see the state as neutral but tremble at seemingly childish use of identity-politics, we split the difference but it ignores the larger cause in favor of patriotic21 reminisce, laws that simply mask national culture for the sake of political unity, quick but impermanent peace. It largely doesn’t matter whether we prefer comfort over order as it still collapses under its own weight22, leaving people to sink or swim no matter what. Yet, what makes the “lite,” the fusionists especially vulnerable to censorship is it cannot imagine the criteria23 enlargening. It wants to disassociate itself, and strand everybody who speaks against his monomania. Since the worst scams begin in cover of optimism24, not crisis, it is impossible to expect masses25 ever vigilant enough until it is too26 late 27.
Although as Mussolini said, nobody knows what they want, it isn’t this individual writ-large knows not what it wants but rather, cares not what it needs.28 People might29 or not30 know when they are being swindled but think in intuitive as opposed rational matter. This is significant as intuition is inherently exoteric unlike that of rationality. Intuition rests itself in these hosts which see the world in terms of a family,31 not a business.32
The compulsion, lastly, by which the preservative movement as it were conducts itself on every legislative matter to public eye unfortunately precedes any politically correct obsession, this in and of itself to preserve only their own hides33. It is not that the bodypolitic is anywhere last34 to that of system35 but that we not only vote36 with our37 speech38, we think39 with40 it.
This is second, compounded by our desire for multilateral41 relationships, that we stoop42 ourselves to the lowliest43 of onesided44 narrations, for fear its souring45 — something further parallel between police outreach46 and Vietnamization.47 This marketing is not dissimilar your typical informercial but the way by which the left attempts to solve conflicts on an international scale is predicated on an individual experience48, skewed in want of e.g., recognition49 even where it doesn’t mismatch a collective feud50, only motivate humanly impulses as might we avoid in preferential anonymity online.
Even the radical, dissent right is vulnerable51 if especially the meme brigade. We accustom ourselves to these political norms, because we know no alternative. Even once leftists perish52, there will be a newer leftism.53
If we truly wish to send Christmas’s worst gift to oblivion, we must not mistake55 our own means56 or intent57 with the larger58 aim59 or we end up back60 where61 we began.
We do that by restoring a monarchy62 — the Salic setup63 is the best model as it avoids a commons any mass will abuse in a democracy and allows for local identities so long as these forces collaborate in the case of invasion, without a single point of failure. Best of all, in putting tradition outside the reach of masses, it also prevents local chieftains from affecting the rest our kingdom and without elections, these niceties associated bureaucracy go the way of the Dodo.