Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 3rd, 2009 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Conservatism defined

Dostoevsky on Modern Conservatism
by Mark Hackard on October 26, 2009

Fyodor Dostoevsky has rightly been called a prophet of the modern age. With a depth of vision unrivalled, he saw that cultural, political, and economic disorder have their main source in the crisis of the spirit.

Dostoevsky foresaw how man’s rebellion against the Transcendent would progressively accelerate into full-blown anarchy. In The Possessed, he was particularly attentive to show us the spiritual corruption of the ruling class, the so-called “conservative” elements of society. Dostoevsky wrote about Russia, but he was also deeply sensitive to the West’s descent into secularism.

Parties like the Republicans and the Tories have done nothing to arrest the decline of our societies because they ultimately share the same radical, anti-traditional principles of the Left. For evidence, look no further than Britain’s rapid transformation into a crime-ridden, multicultural surveillance state otherwise known as “Cool Britannia”, or at the mass of contradictions in the program of the new Edmund Burke Institute in Washington, DC (Richard just recently addressed both examples).

If one holds fast to the ideals of modernity, if one’s faith in sacred Progress, Equality, Democracy, Total Individual Autonomy, etc. is unshaken, opposition is meaningless and purely cosmetic. Rhetorical nods to cultural consolidation are articulated within the corrosive framework of Enlightenment rights ideology, and only for the purpose of grabbing votes. The conservative movement knows what’s really important: generous contributions from the financial and defense industries to maintain policies of corporate centralization and overseas empire.

The mainstream Right has led the West to systemic cultural collapse in full collusion with the slightly more radical Left. The Possessed reveals the spiritual and intellectual dimensions of this long process. A conversation between the story’s provincial governor, Von Lembke, and the nihilist revolutionary Peter Verkhovensky nicely encapsulates the mentality and path of modern conservatism (translation is mine):

“We have responsibilities, and as a result we also serve the common cause as you do. We are only holding back what you loosen and what without us would scatter in various directions. We’re not your enemies; hardly so. We’re saying to you: go forward, make progress, even shatter, that is, everything that is subject to alteration; but when needed, we will keep you within the necessary boundaries and save you from yourselves, because without us you would only send Russia into upheaval, depriving her of a proper appearance, and our duty is to look after proper appearances. Understand that you and I are mutually necessary to each other. In England Tories and Whigs also need each other. Now then, we’re Tories, and you’re Whigs…”

“Well, however you like it,” murmured Peter Stepanovich. “Nevertheless you are paving the way for us and preparing our success.”

Strip away the concern for proper appearances, and it becomes clear that modern conservatism is the handmaiden of revolutionary nihilism.

http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/..._conservatism/
 
Old November 3rd, 2009 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.

~~R. L. Dabney. “Women’s Rights Women”
 
Old November 3rd, 2009 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Dabney's is hands down the best definition of conservatism I've ever seen.
 
Old November 3rd, 2009 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[William Pierce]

Why Conservatives Can't Win

Some of my best friends are conservatives. I sincerely like them and I admire them for their genuine virtues: for their sense of proprietry and personal integrity in an age of corruption, for their independent spirit and their willingness to stand on their own feet in an increasingly paternalistic society.

Therefore, I hope my conservative friends will forgive me for what I am about to write.

A Tragic Choice

There is not the least doubt in my mind that if I were forced to cast my lot with either American conservatism or with the left - old or new - I would choose conservatism.

But, fortunately, none of us is faced with such a limited choice. It would surely be tragic if we were. It would be tragic in the great sense, in the Spenglerian sense. We would be making the choice of Spengler's Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii - who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. We would be choosing what is right and honorable and in accord with the traditions of our race - and certain to fail.

For conservatives cannot possibly emerge victorious from the life-or-death struggle in which they are presently engaged. Although their opponents on the radical left may not attain their own goals - indeed, cannot attain them, because they are based on an erroneous conception of man and Nature - conservatives have proved themselves utterly incapable of preventing the destruction of their own world by those same radical leftists.

Revolutionary Advantage

Conservatives cannot win because the enemy to which they are opposed is a revolutionary enemy - an enemy with revolutionary goals and guided by a revolutionary view of life.

The advantage has always lain - and always will lie - on the side of the contender who is prepared to take the offensive, rather than maintaining a defensive position only. And the elementary natures of the conservative and the revolutionary determine that the one shall always play an essentially defensive role and the other and offensive role.

Besieged vs. Besieger

This defensive-offensive dichotomy does not apply absolutely to tactics, of course, but it does to stratagy. The conservative may launch brief counterattacks - he may sally forth from his fortress to harry his revolutionary besieger - but in the long run he is always the besieged and the revolutionary the besieger.

The goal of the conservative is to protect what is, or, at the extreme, to restore what recently was. The goal of the revolutionary is to radically transform what is, or to do away with it altogether, so that it can be replaced by something entirely different.

Raceless Nirvana

Thus, the conservative talks of "restoring the Constitution", of halting crime in the streets, of keeping down taxes, of fighting the spread of drugs and pornography, of keeping Big Government in check. And the leftist strives for a utopia in which there shall be no war, no "repression", no "discrimination", no "racism", no bounds on the individual's freedom of action - a raceless and effortless nirvana of "love" and "equality" and plenty.

Never-Never Land

The conservative's goals may seem reasonable enough - and attainable. The leftists goals, on the other hand, lie in a never-never land far beyond the horizon of reality. And that is precisely what gives the advantage to the left.

When the conservative makes some minor gain - getting a "constructionist" on the Supreme Court or a Republican in the White House - he is likely to act as if he had just won the whole war. He sees the achievement of his aims just around the corner, he lowers his guard, and he settles back to enjoy the fruits of imagined victory. But the leftist is never satisfied, regardless of what concessions are made to his side, for his goals always remain as remote as before.

The conservative works in fits and spurts. He reacts with alarm to new depradations from the left, but is satisfied if he is able to fall back, regroup his wagons, and establish a new line of defense. The leftist keeps on pushing, probing, advancing, taking a step back now and then, but only to be able to take three steps forward later.

Defeat by Halves

If the leftist makes new demands - for example, for the forced racial integration of schools or housing - the conservative will oppose them with a plea to maintain "neighborhood" schools and "freedom of association". When the smoke clears, the leftist will have won perhaps half what he demanded, and the conservative will have lost half what he tried to preserve.

But then the conservative will accept the new status quo, as if things had always been that way, and prepare to defend it against fresh attacks from the left with the same ineptitude he displayed in defending the old position.

Evil Ideology

This continually shifting position is almost as great a disadvantage to the conservative as is his chronic inability to grasp the initiative. The revolutionary left has and ideology, evil and unnatural though it may be, and from this ideology come the unity and the continuity of purpose which are indispensable prerequisites for victory.

What can conservatives, on the other hand, look to as fighting credo, and immutable principal for which they are willing to sacrifice all? They have been retreating do rapidly during the last 50 years or so that they have completely lost sight of the earlier ground on which they stood. It has simply receded over the ideological horizon.

"Racists" Are Radicals

Consider race, for example. Half a century ago men like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard were spokesmen for the conservative position on race. They argued eloquently, albeit defensively, for the preservation of America's racial identity by maintaining strict barriers against miscegination, adopting sound immigration controls, and applying eugenic standards to the problem of population quality. Today no "responsible" conservative would be caught with the books of either of these men in his living-room bookcase, for by present conservative standards they are both "racists" - hence, "radicals" rather than safely respectable conservatives.

Saving the Constitution

Is there any granite outcropping in the midst of shifting sands - any firm common ground on which conservatives can rally?

The defense of the Constitution perhaps?

The Constitution no longer exists, except as a scrap of paper in the National Archives. Its relevance became nil when it was no longer able to serve the purpose it's authors intended for it.

Insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare are quite different undertakings today than they were 200 years ago. Even such a fundamental portion of the Constitution as its ironclad guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms has proved to be as worthless as the paper it was written on. Nor has the Constitution's explicit ban against legislators who give aid and comfort to our enemies served to prevent the United States from becoming a hotbed for treason.

Free-Enterprise Pitfall

How about rescuing the American free-enterprise system from the evil machinations of Big Government?

As a matter of fact, the free-enterprise system was still relatively intact during the period when alien forces subverted our government and took over our country, and it cannot be said that free-enterprise slowed them down even one little bit. The who gained control of our biggest newspapers and our motion picture industry and our radio and TV networks did so with the aid of free-enterprise, rather than in spite of it.

More than Economics

These comments should not be considered a condemnation of free enterprise per se, nor a belittling of the importance of economic problems in general; more than one nation has gone to ruin through economic mismanagement. The point is that America's problems today go far deeper than any Constitutional or economic reforms can hope to cure or even substantially ameliorate.

The youth of America are smart enough to recognize these things for themselves, and, consequently, are not to be blamed for having few tears to shed for the demise of either the Constitution or laissez-faire capitalism.

Fanatics Needed

The left can find plenty of misguided young fanatics willing to set themselves afire or blow up a police station in order to further the cause of "equality" or "peace". But the idea of young men and women assembling bombs in candle-lit cellars to put an end to the progressive income tax or social security reductions is simply ridiculous.

Until conservatives can offer something more inspiring, not many young Americans will rally to their standard.

Conservatism's two principle failings, lack of a spirit of aggresive activism and lack of any clearly defined ideological basis, go hand in hand. The one cannot be had without the other.

Ultimate Goals

In the words of an outstanding anti-communist leader: "The lack of a great, creative idea always signifies a limitation of fighting ability. A firm conviction of the right to use each and any weapon is always bound up with the fanatical belief in the necessity in the victory of a revolutionary new order on this earth."

"A movement which is not fighting for such ultimate goals and ideals will never seize upon the ultimate weapon"...and , needless to say, will never emerge victorious from a struggle with an opponent who is so motivated.

Revolutionary vs. Revolutionary

Though conservatism cannot win against the left, a new revolutionary force, with the spiritual basis that conservatism lacks, and advancing with even more boldness and determination that the forces of the left, can win!

That new revolutionary force is being built now. Its ranks are being filled with diciplined, idealistic young Americans.

They have examined and found wanting both drugs-and-sex libertinism of the left and the economic libertinism of the right.

A New Order

They are fighting for a new order in American life, based not on the fads and whims of the moment, but on the fundamental values of race and personality - values which once led Western man to the mastery of the earth and which can yet regain that mastery for him and lead him on to the conquest of the universe.

They know that the time is long past when the conservative rhetoric or conservative votes might have saved the day. They understand that America's salvation must now come from young men and women of revolutionary spirit and outlook who are through talking and voting and are instead working toward the day when they can seize the true enemies of our people by the hair of their heads and slit their throats.
 
Old November 5th, 2009 #5
Doug
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 57
Doug
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
...What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position. ~~R. L. Dabney. “Women’s Rights Women”
Conservatives are like apathetic fighters of zombies, who inevitably become what they refuse to sufficiently fight. I wonder how much of that is because of the strong Christian thread that composes conservative "values" though, since Christianity, being the morally relativistic dogma it is, seeks popularity, since it chooses not to win through the sheer force of facts.
 
Old September 1st, 2011 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Conservatism is a fundraising strategy disguised as a political philosophy.
 
Old September 1st, 2011 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Conservatives never win because they don't want to win. They don't want to win because in their heart they believe winning is immoral.
 
Old November 8th, 2013 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[dont know who wrote this, going to respond later]

The Failure of Conservatism.

An objective analysis of socio-political history would have to conclude that, in the battle between conservatism and liberalism, liberalism has been the winner. Even today's modern "conservatism" is not the conservatism of 1900. It, too, has been heavily influenced by liberal thought. The dividing line between the two ideologies seems more economic rather than social and on socially corrosive issues like divorce, promiscuity, multiculturalism and moral relativism there appears to little in practice to separate the two mainstream political actors. From this vantage point in time one has to conclude that Conservatism in the 20th Century has failed. In fact, on every issue that Conservatism has taken a position liberalism has trumped it. Some might disagree and argue that conservatives won on economic issues, to which I reply, "Gold standard, anyone?"

The problem with Conservatism is that it has swallowed much of the liberal Kool-Aid and whilst there may be particular factions which espouse a particular truth quite forcefully, for nearly every faction that espouses one conservative truth it does it with an admixture of other liberal errors. Modern American and British Conservatism seem to bee prime examples of this admixture. In fact, it's my opinion that American conservatism could quite easily slide into some form of South American (Not German) Fascism if it is not too careful, so bad is the mixture.

If God were not on our side then I would consider Conservatism a hopeless cause. Surveying the field I see liberalism triumphant in every corner, the persecution of Christians, it's final development, is begining and hard times are about to be on us. Still, God has matched us with this hour and, presumably, thought us up to task. Therefore, our duty is to get our arse into gear and start rebuilding the temple. The question is, where to begin?

I suppose the first task is to work out where we went wrong, where the movement failed, if for no other reason to stop making the same mistakes. An audit of Conservatism is in order.

It's my view that the Conservative movement has made several fundamental errors which are contributing to its destruction. Some of which are due to historical circumstances and some of which are due to poor thinking on core ideology, particularly, with regard to human nature. If I were to issue a Syllabus of modern Conservative Errors I suppose I would want to include the following in the list.

1) The embrace of universal democracy. i.e. One man, one vote. In principle, this is a noble ideal but in practice is toxic to good governance. The average man is a moron, albeit a good natured one who simply lacks the cognitive expertise (or inclination) to contribute meaningfully to good management of society. He is also the soft underbelly of society, whom the Cathedral relies on to implement it social policies. The whole aim of Cathedral ops is to condition not convince Joe Average into acting in accordance with their wishes. Since the stupid and gullible outnumber the wise and prudent it's a no-brainer to see who will win this contest in a universal democracy. When you make the world safe for universal democracy you're making the world safe for liberalism.

Note, this isn't an argument for or against monarchy or oligarchy. Political power should be invested into those who have skin in the game and into those who have the capacity to exercise it wisely. The idea that every man is wise and prudent is a falsehood. T

2) Moral relativism. What this does is making Conservatism a "value lite" form of political governance. The values being filled in by liberalism. Divorce, for instance, is not just a religious question but one with societal and therefore political consequences. A Conservatism which fails to make some value judgements is conservatism that cannot govern properly. It also opens the door to all sorts of other evils. How do you stop multiculturalism when emasculate yourself by refusing to assert the superiority of your own culture?

3) High Anglicanism. Modern conservatism is strongly influenced by English thought and habit. Front loaded into this cultural heritage is the concept of "niceness" or agreeableness. As people like Malcolm Muggeridge have noted, the High English custom is to prefer good mannered evil to coarse mannered good. Anglo-Conservatives tend to be extraordinarily nice people. The problem is that a man needs to be good before he is nice. Sometimes you just have to offend.

4) Tradition. Tradition, in my mind has been both the blessing and bane of Conservatism. The mindless worshiping of it has stymied Conservatism's ability to deal with new realities and allowed the Left to outflank it when it comes to "solving" novel problems. The industrialisation of the West, which bought about brand new social realities, blindsided the Conservative movement and enabled the liberal establishment to become established. Agrarianism, which seems to find a home in conservatism, is one such school of thought which seem to prefer that industrialism went away. The problem is, so do the material conditions of modern life. You need an industrial society to produce MRI machines.

Now tradition is good, insofar as it gives us an accurate understanding of reality. Where tradition is evil is where it proposes something that is contrary to reality. The problem with traditionalists is that they can't make that distinction and this is a real problem, especially given the history of the conservative movement, where the traditionalists have been the ones who have done most of the heavy lifting.

It's got to be admitted that the traditionalists were the only ones keeping the "light on" during the very dark days of the conservative movement in the later half of the 20th Century. This has given them a certain amount of moral authority but the fact remains that the movement slid during their watch. Men like Kirk, Oakshott, Babbit and Buckly did the yeoman work of the time and need to be acknowledged but, ultimately, their strategy failed. The problem with ensconcing these individuals to quasi mythical status is that their take on conservatism becomes the offical line. When some new upstart with ideas proposes something contrary to their vision, their immediately labelled unconservative by being untraditional and categorically trown into the liberal camp. Cue Roissy.

But there does seem to be some flickering of life at least in that old bastion of reactionary conservatism, Catholicism. In a speech heavily critiqued by Anarchopapist, Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez stated:
The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council. On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue. Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person.
This is exactly the same line of thought as taken by the giant of American Conservatism in the 20th Century, Whittaker Chambers. He seemed to be the only one doing the deep thinking. The old world had serious problems, which were amped by industrialisation and which the conservative institutions of society were not able to provide any solutions to. The vacuum was filled by modernism which provided even worse solutions. This theme, of rigid old and stupid new, was picked up by another guy who gets a lot of heat from the Traditionalist Right, Pope Francis. (I wonder if he reads this blog)

In this meditation by Pope Francis, which did not get much press in the mainstream media he says;
There are two temptations to face at this moment in the Church’s history: drawing back[Ed:Traditionalism], because we are afraid of the freedom that comes from the law “enacted in the Holy Spirit”; and giving in to an “adolescent progressivism”, namely, the inclination to follow the most captivating values presented by prevailing culture.
That's Whittaker Chambers talking.

We have been so fixated by the overt assault by liberal modernism that we've not noticed the covert enemy within.

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/...servatism.html

5 comments:
Anonymous said...

You can't compete with a free lunch. That is, until someone has to pay the bill.
12:36 PM
MarcusD said...

I suppose this quote from Chesterton is appropriate:

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob."

5:31 PM
King Richard said...

With all respect:
Your analysis makes the common mistake of conflating 'current Anglosphere pop culture and national politics' with 'the world'. I am surprised to see an Australian making an error I usually associate with Americans. Perhaps my friend was correct when he stated that 'The heresy once called Americanism may need to be called Anglosphere-ism'.
But, to actually continue. Social issues are certainly not dead throughout the world; look at Russia, Poland, and Romania where there is active opposition to homosexuality, feminism, etc. and actual Conservative parties are strong and active in politics.
Also, do not confuse ';a handful of political parties' with actual Conservatives. As you correctly point out, Democracy is a terrible trap and an obviously unsustainable system on the edge of collapse. The moral relativism, cronyism, etc. are not separate issues, they are all part and parcel of Democracy. This includes 'High Anglicanism' which is part and parcel of secularizing Democracy.
This is also why you seem to misunderstand the role and purpose of Tradition. Tradition is not meant to 'adapt and react' to the newest manufactured crisis of a corrupt system, it is to preserve truth until corrupt systems collapse. Tradition has prevented Conservatives from adapting to Modernism, Americanism, Democracy, and Moral Relativism? Huzzah! Tradition has done its job!
This is why fewer and fewer individuals who identify as Conservative are actively participating in the Democratic process - they don't vote, they don't run for office, and they don't engage in other ways because they are realizing the system itself is inherently evil. Not inefficient, not inelegant, but evil. You see more and more young people rejecting the culture, rejecting the politics, and embracing Tradition and Conservatism, but quietly.
Which religious orders are growing fastest? Which parishes are full?
Who are the people having children? Who are the people keeping their children out of the public school system? They are often the same ones attending those Traditional parishes, sending money (and children) to those Traditional orders, and having nothing to do with political parties, elections, or pop culture.
When I look at the shocking advances in politics Liberal concepts made in the West in just two generations i certainly do *not* think that truth can no longer prevail, I conclude that the death of the Boomers may end the madness. Do you really think thousands of years can be annihilated in 100? Oh, America may go away, as may many another polity, but Conservatism? Hardly.
It's Not the End of the World, It's Just the End of You: The Great Extinction of the Nations: David P. Goldman: 9781614122029: Amazon.com: Books It's Not the End of the World, It's Just the End of You: The Great Extinction of the Nations: David P. Goldman: 9781614122029: Amazon.com: Books

Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century: Eric Kaufmann: 9781846681448: Amazon.com: Books Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century: Eric Kaufmann: 9781846681448: Amazon.com: Books

Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis
1:41 AM
Ingemar said...

King Richard,

>Who are the people having children?

Look at any list of statistics of countries by total fertility; now consider the Anglosphere's porous immigration policies.

Conservatives have been relying on the tired "we'll outbreed them" flavor of wishful thinking for two generations now, maybe three. It hasn't worked.

Globalization means that the liberals can outsource whatever labour they can, import human capital for the labour they can't, and technology increasingly means that human input is necessary.

Slumlord,
>The problem is, so do the material conditions of modern life. You need an industrial society to produce MRI machines.

If I were a forward (backward?) thinking revolutionary, I'd train my followers to get used to famine, disease, lean times and the necessity of living by one's hands. Then I would coordinate a simultaneous attack on major power plants.

Electricity is the Achilles Heel of modern society. Imagine a fragile body politic that no longer has the social media panem et circenses.
2:13 AM
King Richard said...

Ingemar,
1) population momentum - it takes a few generations for such shifts to be felt on a large scale but when the momentum shifts it takes many more generations to do anything about it. For example, if every female under 35 in Japan started having 5 kids *right now* Japan would still face population decline for another 2-3 generations. Saying 'it hasn't worked yet' is to admit you don't understand how it works.
2) Where are these workers going to come from? North Africa has had below-replacement fertility longer than Europe! The continent of Asia has been below replacement fertility for decades; South America is below replacement. All that is left are parts of Sub-Saharan Africa and that is only parts of it, they tend to be the bad parts where skilled workers aren't coming from, and the death rate is so high it is a wash.
Sorry, but world population has effectively peaked *now*. After a few years of plateau population momentum will swing the other way, and hard. By 210 world human population could well be below 2 billion, maybe (maybe) under 1 billion. This is a reduction in human population unlike anything ever seen before - global and without natural disaster or plague.
With that being the case, trust me - populations that maintain above replacement fertility will have a very outsized impact on the next few centuries.
And we haven't even talked about political socialization!
 
Old November 8th, 2013 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The Failure of Conservatism.

An objective analysis of socio-political history would have to conclude that, in the battle between conservatism and liberalism, liberalism has been the winner. Even today's modern "conservatism" is not the conservatism of 1900. It, too, has been heavily influenced by liberal thought. The dividing line between the two ideologies

Thought the whole point of conservatism was that it's not an ideology, see Kirk. It's all about pragmatic prudence, not fixed principles. Of course, it will claim to support the 'eternal verities,' but never to the point where it means, say, not responding to an NYC jew's cocktail invitation.


seems more economic rather than social and on socially corrosive issues like divorce, promiscuity, multiculturalism and moral relativism there appears to little in practice to separate the two mainstream political actors.

This is because conservative leaders have chosen to submit rather than fight. Submit to jews. Jews say race must be separated from conservatism, or we will call you nazis in public, and destroy your reputation, and cause you to lose your job. But we'll let you bitch about tax rates. Whaddayasay, Rushbo? O'Reilly? Buckley? You agree? Great! Then we have something. Having surrendered on the deepest issues, how can conservatism have any respect for itself? It cannot. It becomes a game. A career choice. A way to make money. But not a real opposition. A fake opposition. A fake opposition highly useful, even necessary, to the real ruling power - the jews promoting liberalism.

From this vantage point in time one has to conclude that Conservatism in the 20th Century has failed. In fact, on every issue that Conservatism has taken a position liberalism has trumped it. Some might disagree and argue that conservatives won on economic issues, to which I reply, "Gold standard, anyone?"

It hasn't just failed - more significantly, it never even tried. It simply rolled over on its belly when confronted by Trotskyites. It has no stomach for fighting, and never has. This was known in the 19th century, cue the Dabney quote. Conservatives, as I've said, have a spiritual problem in their core: they believe winning is immoral. So they don't even try. It's just a rationalization for avoiding their duty, which is to fight for their kind. Their blood. What else could conservatism possibly mean? It can't simply mean appeals to religion and tradition, neatly separated from bloodlines. But that's what modern conservatives, better said coopted conservatives, try to do. They fail, but in this age of universal idiocy, or public schooling as the NEA morons would prefer you call it, who's to know the difference? Any experience with Twitter, Facebook or other social media will persuade any intellectual conservative that 99% of those calling themselves conservatives are simply the set of unread idiots who prefer Fox to CNN. They have never read Burke's Reflections. They haven't even heard of Burke, most of them. Conservatism, as I've said a million times, is whatever their favorite gasbag tells them it is. It could be anything from National Socialism to jewish communism.

The problem with Conservatism is that it has swallowed much of the liberal Kool-Aid and whilst there may be particular factions which espouse a particular truth quite forcefully, for nearly every faction that espouses one conservative truth it does it with an admixture of other liberal errors. Modern American and British Conservatism seem to bee prime examples of this admixture. In fact, it's my opinion that American conservatism could quite easily slide into some form of South American (Not German) Fascism if it is not too careful, so bad is the mixture.

People don't read. And their leaders lie to them. Given these facts, how can you expect them even to know what conservatism truly is? You can't.

If God were not on our side then I would consider Conservatism a hopeless cause.

That...is truly one of the funniest lines I've ever read. Thank you. You've got it exactly backwards: your belief in god is precisely what makes conservatism hopeless. But thanks for perfectly summing up, unintentionally, the general dopiness of the ilk. Some imaginary force is on your side! He just lets the other guy win all the time out of perverse humor, I suppose. But this is a pet peeve of mine: there is nothing conservative about religion. It belongs to delusional utopian fantasy properly associated with the left.

Surveying the field I see liberalism triumphant in every corner, the persecution of Christians, it's final development, is begining and hard times are about to be on us. Still, God has matched us with this hour and, presumably, thought us up to task. Therefore, our duty is to get our arse into gear and start rebuilding the temple. The question is, where to begin?

God won't help you. Try to find a more religious group than the Boervolk. Look what's happening to them. Their answer? We turned away from God, therefore he abandoned us. That's the cry of a hopelessly lost people. They aren't coming back from anything, they're disappearing. All because of their religion. It's not the only cause, but it is the main one. The white man who takes up jebooism loses his will to defend himself, and becomes a man of the world, which is a nothing-man. Who in the world in his right mind would take pride in being part of a group that includes niggers?

I suppose the first task is to work out where we went wrong, where the movement failed, if for no other reason to stop making the same mistakes. An audit of Conservatism is in order.

It's my view that the Conservative movement has made several fundamental errors which are contributing to its destruction. Some of which are due to historical circumstances and some of which are due to poor thinking on core ideology, particularly, with regard to human nature. If I were to issue a Syllabus of modern Conservative Errors I suppose I would want to include the following in the list.

1) The embrace of universal democracy. i.e. One man, one vote. In principle, this is a noble ideal but in practice is toxic to good governance. The average man is a moron, albeit a good natured one who simply lacks the cognitive expertise (or inclination) to contribute meaningfully to good management of society. He is also the soft underbelly of society, whom the Cathedral relies on to implement it social policies. The whole aim of Cathedral ops is to condition not convince Joe Average into acting in accordance with their wishes. Since the stupid and gullible outnumber the wise and prudent it's a no-brainer to see who will win this contest in a universal democracy. When you make the world safe for universal democracy you're making the world safe for liberalism.

Note, this isn't an argument for or against monarchy or oligarchy. Political power should be invested into those who have skin in the game and into those who have the capacity to exercise it wisely. The idea that every man is wise and prudent is a falsehood. T

2) Moral relativism. What this does is making Conservatism a "value lite" form of political governance. The values being filled in by liberalism. Divorce, for instance, is not just a religious question but one with societal and therefore political consequences. A Conservatism which fails to make some value judgements is conservatism that cannot govern properly. It also opens the door to all sorts of other evils. How do you stop multiculturalism when emasculate yourself by refusing to assert the superiority of your own culture?

You're not wrong, but you're wasting time with symptoms rather than identifying the disease. The jews told conservatives to cut the cord between blood and politics. They complied. The positions you berate follow from this quite inevitably. Conservatives, as the price of not being excluded from public diaglogue, agreed to become liberals on race. They agreed to play a rigged game. They knew better, but it served their individual careers to play make-believe for money. That's why they're best called career girls, because that's what matters most to them.

3) High Anglicanism. Modern conservatism is strongly influenced by English thought and habit. Front loaded into this cultural heritage is the concept of "niceness" or agreeableness. As people like Malcolm Muggeridge have noted, the High English custom is to prefer good mannered evil to coarse mannered good. Anglo-Conservatives tend to be extraordinarily nice people. The problem is that a man needs to be good before he is nice. Sometimes you just have to offend.[/quote]


This is true. It's just good old English hypocrisy, unfortunately carried from the mother to the child America. In the UK, to seem always has and always will be more important than to be. It's an ingrained cultural thing that can't be fixed. Conservatism must find a different approach, and the only one that can work is the German approach, most recently embodied by the nationalists of Golden Dawn in Greece. They say what they mean, and they back it up with their actions. This is completely foreign to the British cultural model, but it's the only one that will allow white men to triumph over degrading jews, which is the political battle of our time on which all else, all the cultural offal conservatives snuffle endlessly in, depends. Jews are aggressive. Anglos are polite. Guess who wins? Just look around you and see. Look at how Hitler and Goebbels did it - if you're interested in winning. Otherwise, get used to losing.


4) Tradition. Tradition, in my mind has been both the blessing and bane of Conservatism.

Tradition used void of article is as meaningless and deceptive as family. Which tradition? There are many. It's not like there's some platonic form.

The mindless worshiping of it has stymied Conservatism's ability to deal with new realities and allowed the Left to outflank it when it comes to "solving" novel problems. The industrialisation of the West, which bought about brand new social realities, blindsided the Conservative movement and enabled the liberal establishment to become established. Agrarianism, which seems to find a home in conservatism, is one such school of thought which seem to prefer that industrialism went away. The problem is, so do the material conditions of modern life. You need an industrial society to produce MRI machines.

Now tradition is good, insofar as it gives us an accurate understanding of reality. Where tradition is evil is where it proposes something that is contrary to reality. The problem with traditionalists is that they can't make that distinction and this is a real problem, especially given the history of the conservative movement, where the traditionalists have been the ones who have done most of the heavy lifting.

It's got to be admitted that the traditionalists were the only ones keeping the "light on" during the very dark days of the conservative movement in the later half of the 20th Century. This has given them a certain amount of moral authority but the fact remains that the movement slid during their watch. Men like Kirk, Oakshott, Babbit and Buckly did the yeoman work of the time and need to be acknowledged but, ultimately, their strategy failed. The problem with ensconcing these individuals to quasi mythical status is that their take on conservatism becomes the offical line. When some new upstart with ideas proposes something contrary to their vision, their immediately labelled unconservative by being untraditional and categorically trown into the liberal camp. Cue Roissy.

Their ideas are far less a problem than their character. Where they should have fought, they submitted. Their audience didn't know any better - but they did.

But there does seem to be some flickering of life at least in that old bastion of reactionary conservatism, Catholicism. In a speech heavily critiqued by Anarchopapist, Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez stated:

The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council. On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue. Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person.

This is exactly the same line of thought as taken by the giant of American Conservatism in the 20th Century, Whittaker Chambers. He seemed to be the only one doing the deep thinking. The old world had serious problems, which were amped by industrialisation and which the conservative institutions of society were not able to provide any solutions to. The vacuum was filled by modernism which provided even worse solutions. This theme, of rigid old and stupid new, was picked up by another guy who gets a lot of heat from the Traditionalist Right, Pope Francis. (I wonder if he reads this blog)

In this meditation by Pope Francis, which did not get much press in the mainstream media he says;

There are two temptations to face at this moment in the Church’s history: drawing back[Ed:Traditionalism], because we are afraid of the freedom that comes from the law “enacted in the Holy Spirit”; and giving in to an “adolescent progressivism”, namely, the inclination to follow the most captivating values presented by prevailing culture.

That's Whittaker Chambers talking.

We have been so fixated by the overt assault by liberal modernism that we've not noticed the covert enemy within.

Any institution that believes in the brotherhood of man and spiritual equality is inherently liberal.

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/...servatism.html

5 comments:
Anonymous said...

You can't compete with a free lunch. That is, until someone has to pay the bill.
12:36 PM
MarcusD said...

I suppose this quote from Chesterton is appropriate:

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob."

5:31 PM
King Richard said...

With all respect:
Your analysis makes the common mistake of conflating 'current Anglosphere pop culture and national politics' with 'the world'. I am surprised to see an Australian making an error I usually associate with Americans. Perhaps my friend was correct when he stated that 'The heresy once called Americanism may need to be called Anglosphere-ism'.

That's true. Anywhere in the English-speaking world you will find the same, destructive anti-white jew-yielding liberalism passing for conservatism.

But, to actually continue. Social issues are certainly not dead throughout the world; look at Russia, Poland, and Romania where there is active opposition to homosexuality, feminism, etc. and actual Conservative parties are strong and active in politics.

Also, do not confuse ';a handful of political parties' with actual Conservatives. As you correctly point out, Democracy is a terrible trap and an obviously unsustainable system on the edge of collapse. The moral relativism, cronyism, etc. are not separate issues, they are all part and parcel of Democracy. This includes 'High Anglicanism' which is part and parcel of secularizing Democracy.

This is also why you seem to misunderstand the role and purpose of
Tradition. Tradition is not meant to 'adapt and react' to the newest manufactured crisis of a corrupt system, it is to preserve truth until corrupt systems collapse. Tradition has prevented Conservatives from adapting to Modernism, Americanism, Democracy, and Moral Relativism? Huzzah! Tradition has done its job!

This is why fewer and fewer individuals who identify as Conservative are actively participating in the Democratic process - they don't vote, they don't run for office, and they don't engage in other ways because they are realizing the system itself is inherently evil. Not inefficient, not inelegant, but evil. You see more and more young people rejecting the culture, rejecting the politics, and embracing Tradition and Conservatism, but quietly.

Which religious orders are growing fastest? Which parishes are full?

Who are the people having children? Who are the people keeping their children out of the public school system? They are often the same ones attending those Traditional parishes, sending money (and children) to those Traditional orders, and having nothing to do with political parties, elections, or pop culture.

Another way of putting this is that they've been defeated - and accepted it. At one time, their kind prevailed. Now it hides.

When I look at the shocking advances in politics Liberal concepts made in the West in just two generations i certainly do *not* think that truth can no longer prevail, I conclude that the death of the Boomers may end the madness. Do you really think thousands of years can be annihilated in 100? Oh, America may go away, as may many another polity, but Conservatism? Hardly.

Ideas don't disappear, but a third-world country won't be interested in conservatism. For one, it hasn't the IQ for it. For two, it conflicts with its greed. Muds want goods from whites. That's all. That's the whole and extent of their philosophy: give me your shit, evil white man. The media goes along with this. The schools inculcate guilt in young whites. How is this going to change? Only when whites come together on a racial basis and force it to change. Or they can be killed off as is currently happening in South Africa.

It's Not the End of the World, It's Just the End of You: The Great Extinction of the Nations: David P. Goldman: 9781614122029: Amazon.com: Books It's Not the End of the World, It's Just the End of You: The Great Extinction of the Nations: David P. Goldman: 9781614122029: Amazon.com: Books

Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century: Eric Kaufmann: 9781846681448: Amazon.com: Books Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century: Eric Kaufmann: 9781846681448: Amazon.com: Books

Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis
1:41 AM
Ingemar said...

King Richard,

>Who are the people having children?

Look at any list of statistics of countries by total fertility; now consider the Anglosphere's porous immigration policies.

Conservatives have been relying on the tired "we'll outbreed them" flavor of wishful thinking for two generations now, maybe three. It hasn't worked.

Globalization means that the liberals can outsource whatever labour they can, import human capital for the labour they can't, and technology increasingly means that human input is necessary.

Slumlord,
>The problem is, so do the material conditions of modern life. You need an industrial society to produce MRI machines.

If I were a forward (backward?) thinking revolutionary, I'd train my followers to get used to famine, disease, lean times and the necessity of living by one's hands. Then I would coordinate a simultaneous attack on major power plants.

Electricity is the Achilles Heel of modern society. Imagine a fragile body politic that no longer has the social media panem et circenses.
2:13 AM
King Richard said...

Ingemar,
1) population momentum - it takes a few generations for such shifts to be felt on a large scale but when the momentum shifts it takes many more generations to do anything about it. For example, if every female under 35 in Japan started having 5 kids *right now* Japan would still face population decline for another 2-3 generations. Saying 'it hasn't worked yet' is to admit you don't understand how it works.
2) Where are these workers going to come from? North Africa has had below-replacement fertility longer than Europe! The continent of Asia has been below replacement fertility for decades; South America is below replacement. All that is left are parts of Sub-Saharan Africa and that is only parts of it, they tend to be the bad parts where skilled workers aren't coming from, and the death rate is so high it is a wash.
Sorry, but world population has effectively peaked *now*. After a few years of plateau population momentum will swing the other way, and hard. By 210 world human population could well be below 2 billion, maybe (maybe) under 1 billion. This is a reduction in human population unlike anything ever seen before - global and without natural disaster or plague.
With that being the case, trust me - populations that maintain above replacement fertility will have a very outsized impact on the next few centuries.
And we haven't even talked about political socialization![/quote]
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 PM.
Page generated in 0.17756 seconds.