The progressive position on issues just seems 'nicer'. For that reason, they have an inherent advantage. They are always on the side of the weaker, the poorer, the more abnormal. Their framing of everything as oppression or abuse of power or greed is not correct but it elicits sympathy. The game is rigged, by human psychology, in their favor.
We're LOSERS but we're PRINCIPLED losers!! The Left only wishes they were principled like us! How they must hate themselves for winning winning winning but with no principlessssss!
This essay further bolsters my aversion to conservatism, an aversion that grows increasingly strong over time. It has been said before that conservatism is a break-pad, that it facillitates leftism and cultural marxism by tempering it. I tend to agree.
I suggest in this essay the problem is likely baked into the cake semantically:
If you look up the word “to conseve” in The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary, it does not mean to defend or protect absolutely. One definition reads as follows “Keep from harm, loss, or waste, especially with a view to later use; preserve with care.” Notably, according to these and other definitions, “To conserve does not mean to defend or protect for all time, but to prevent wasteful, destructive use with a view to later dispensation over time, over the long-term.”
It may interest some to know that Robert Bork mentions this same problem in Slouching Towards Gomorrah. Conservatives do not categorically oppose lefitst policies for all time, they oppose them for now, but in fifteen years, fine go ahead. We have seen this with so-called gay marriage (which has proven that the slippery slope is no fallacy), saw it before with matters of race, and we will probably see with the transgender menace as well.
I happen to like labels like “right-wing,” “right-winger,” and “far-right,” if for no other reason than to own these pejoratives and take the sting out of them. It also amuses me to use them and watch lefty and fuddy duddy conservatives stutter in befuddlement, similar to how they remain in disblelief that someone could ever response to charges of “racism” with “Yes, I am.”
I realize of course such terms go back to the French Revoluton and envisage a parliamentary system that keeps the left in the game, whereas I am convinced that, somehow, someway, the modern left on both sides of the Atlantic must be taken off the market. In this way, there would only be the right, which would then become the center and the whole, the constant.
The other aspect of this is their slavish attitude to neo-liberalism and 'muh free market'. The latter is a fiction, although I can see why it might be an attractive one on the face of it. It's true to say that nothing would get done and the world would simply collapse in on itself if everything were to be micro-managed by an egalitarian state (e.g. the sort of thing that the likes of Jeremy Corbyn would like to create).
Behind the international finance and markets that these people worship, however, lies unfettered self-interest and even ethnic hostility. Even now, the puppet Trump is bragging about the supposed benefit to America of rising oil prices caused by his masters' (or perhaps more accurately friends') ethno-religious empire building halfway across the world.
“Conservatism” is a type of Enlightenment ideology that wishes to bring about left-wing change, but by increments instead of in a great revolution. Once I figured that out, all became clear, but it took me a long time to understand it.
I suspect that the epithet 'Sensible Centrist' is used somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It serves as a name for the difference between how so-called centrism (which doesn't really exist) might manifest in reality, versus the official state 'centrism' as proffered by the nation wreckers in parliament.
Conservatist ideology is even worse than you portray it. For years, the Conservative crowd in America was led by the Buckleyite, National Review crowd, who think it isn't "conservative" to fight against the Left. Their idea of "conservatism" is to sit in a leather chair in a country club, sipping Scotch while gloating about how cultured they are. They weren't just apathetic and lazy- they deliberately promoted a philosophy of failure and defeat, saying "don't immanentize the eschaton", a stupid and pretentious quote they got from that lunatic Eric Voegelin, a crank who thought Gnosticism was at the root of every evil in the world. He didn't even understand Gnosticism at all, saying that an utterly materialistic philosophy like Communism was "gnostic", which is so absurdly and utterly false that it would be funny if it wasn't so outrageous. Voegelin thought that trying to reform the world in any way was "gnostic" and was "immanentizing the eschaton" by trying to create Heaven on Earth. Thus, the only proper course is to do nothing, and never, ever try too hard to fix things. If this sounds completely crazy, it's because it is. And this was the stated philosophy of mainstream American intellectual conservatives for decades. Some of these autistic nerds even wore t-shirts saying "Don't immanentize the eschaton"!!!! Complete idiots. I have a particular beef with Voegelin, because I have great sympathy for ancient Gnosticism, which contains many profound ideas, and has been viciously and unfairly lied about, slandered, and vilified by countless wretches who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
It's baked into the philosophy. Russell Kirk in the Conservative Mind - “Conservatism never is more admirable than when it accepts changes that it disapproves, with good grace, for the sake of a general conciliation.”
Well done, Colin. This is a useful primer on the impotence of conservatism as described by Oakeshott and others. Obviously, our age seems to demand radicalization.
I know little about how politics feels on the street in the UK right now, so I’m curious: is the problem of impotent conservative psychology increasingly just an English phenomenon — a Burkean memory of common law, the monarchy, and other old, stable institutions?
As an American, my sense is that the cliché milquetoast “I just want to grill” guy barely exists anymore. Everyone I encounter seems radicalized in one direction or another.
The elderly white ladies who once had corny scripture on their bumper stickers have upgraded to simply “God Bless Israel.” They are openly talking about the end times — and they aren’t larping. They can’t stop discussing it. Since October 7, it’s all their pastors seem to feed them.
(Did you see the reporting about U.S. Army generals giving end-times sermons to young troops? That’s a real situation in Trump Country rn.)
Meanwhile, the (mostly white) local leftists are more energized than I’ve seen in my lifetime, across all age groups. Their complaints range from Elon Musk and “the kings” of tech to fascist Trump and his ICE raids. Rallies in freezing cold weather were common every Saturday, all winter.
Even the high-status, white high school Chads and Stacys openly meme about Nick Fuentes at local football and hockey games. Calling someone “brown clown” has become a common youthful insult (lol).
The MAGA base may be the most radicalized of all, precisely because it is almost completely apolitical. At this point it resembles a pure cult of personality. I honestly doubt that if Trump used a nuclear weapon his base would condemn it.
In my experience, temperamental conservatism mostly exists on X, where figures like Patrick Casey can make a comfortable living performing it. But I'm not well-traveled.
The conservative faces a few internal struggles - 1. to consider the idea that the "far right" might be correct on some key issues, 2. to admit to himself that they are, 3. to say it to others in public. Some of them can't even get past stage one of that process. It's all too frightening.
I believe that even the Holy Bible has something to say about this. God himself said He'd rather you be hot or cold. Middling = He'd spit out of His mouth. Well, same.
I have found that when reading through the Bible, it becomes very personalized each time one reads, and the same verse can give us different meanings at different times of our lives. I think that’s what is so brilliant about the ancient text, but I always love to hear others interpretations to consider.
You’re right, that is why every single nation and collective expresses it differently. The trouble is that it wants to encompass infinite groups, but every group is different enough they’ll fight for their own way. Sure there’s helpful things contained in it, that’s why folk like it, but I think it’s weaponised and can be used to manipulate us in ways that would be impossible if we had a totally Native source for what is actually good about it. Unfortunately there is no recommended Native source other than fragments.
As a Traditionalist, I have a very strict view on who can really be considered right-wing.
Conservatives are left-wing, and while many of them do indeed sympathise with us but too afraid to take a stand, most of them are actually progressives driving the speed limit or people who really want to go back to 1985 but no further.
I believe that a left-winger can be unmasked by being asked a set of gradually more and more radical questions with a left-wing and a right-wing answer to them. All conservatives will eventually reach a point at which they will side with communists against us.
Yup. That's why I abandoned the word conservative for Traditionalist. I would love to see a radical change in our society back to the norms of the pre 1789 world.
The progressive position on issues just seems 'nicer'. For that reason, they have an inherent advantage. They are always on the side of the weaker, the poorer, the more abnormal. Their framing of everything as oppression or abuse of power or greed is not correct but it elicits sympathy. The game is rigged, by human psychology, in their favor.
Cuckservitism has ALWAYS conserved
The Status quo
Anti Whiteism
Jewish Power
Liberal Demoracy
Formation of NWO2030
Classic Conservatives:
We're LOSERS but we're PRINCIPLED losers!! The Left only wishes they were principled like us! How they must hate themselves for winning winning winning but with no principlessssss!
If anybody doesn't have the "moral high ground", it's the conservative. Conserve the gdp at any cost, no matter who dies.
This essay further bolsters my aversion to conservatism, an aversion that grows increasingly strong over time. It has been said before that conservatism is a break-pad, that it facillitates leftism and cultural marxism by tempering it. I tend to agree.
I suggest in this essay the problem is likely baked into the cake semantically:
https://theravenscall.substack.com/p/conservatism-defined
If you look up the word “to conseve” in The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary, it does not mean to defend or protect absolutely. One definition reads as follows “Keep from harm, loss, or waste, especially with a view to later use; preserve with care.” Notably, according to these and other definitions, “To conserve does not mean to defend or protect for all time, but to prevent wasteful, destructive use with a view to later dispensation over time, over the long-term.”
It may interest some to know that Robert Bork mentions this same problem in Slouching Towards Gomorrah. Conservatives do not categorically oppose lefitst policies for all time, they oppose them for now, but in fifteen years, fine go ahead. We have seen this with so-called gay marriage (which has proven that the slippery slope is no fallacy), saw it before with matters of race, and we will probably see with the transgender menace as well.
I happen to like labels like “right-wing,” “right-winger,” and “far-right,” if for no other reason than to own these pejoratives and take the sting out of them. It also amuses me to use them and watch lefty and fuddy duddy conservatives stutter in befuddlement, similar to how they remain in disblelief that someone could ever response to charges of “racism” with “Yes, I am.”
I realize of course such terms go back to the French Revoluton and envisage a parliamentary system that keeps the left in the game, whereas I am convinced that, somehow, someway, the modern left on both sides of the Atlantic must be taken off the market. In this way, there would only be the right, which would then become the center and the whole, the constant.
The other aspect of this is their slavish attitude to neo-liberalism and 'muh free market'. The latter is a fiction, although I can see why it might be an attractive one on the face of it. It's true to say that nothing would get done and the world would simply collapse in on itself if everything were to be micro-managed by an egalitarian state (e.g. the sort of thing that the likes of Jeremy Corbyn would like to create).
Behind the international finance and markets that these people worship, however, lies unfettered self-interest and even ethnic hostility. Even now, the puppet Trump is bragging about the supposed benefit to America of rising oil prices caused by his masters' (or perhaps more accurately friends') ethno-religious empire building halfway across the world.
I think by 2030 'conservatism' will be considered a total joke if not actively subversive.
“Conservatism” is a type of Enlightenment ideology that wishes to bring about left-wing change, but by increments instead of in a great revolution. Once I figured that out, all became clear, but it took me a long time to understand it.
The conservative—otherwise known as the sensible centrist.
This will upset many in our circles, but I don’t care.
I suspect that the epithet 'Sensible Centrist' is used somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It serves as a name for the difference between how so-called centrism (which doesn't really exist) might manifest in reality, versus the official state 'centrism' as proffered by the nation wreckers in parliament.
Conservatist ideology is even worse than you portray it. For years, the Conservative crowd in America was led by the Buckleyite, National Review crowd, who think it isn't "conservative" to fight against the Left. Their idea of "conservatism" is to sit in a leather chair in a country club, sipping Scotch while gloating about how cultured they are. They weren't just apathetic and lazy- they deliberately promoted a philosophy of failure and defeat, saying "don't immanentize the eschaton", a stupid and pretentious quote they got from that lunatic Eric Voegelin, a crank who thought Gnosticism was at the root of every evil in the world. He didn't even understand Gnosticism at all, saying that an utterly materialistic philosophy like Communism was "gnostic", which is so absurdly and utterly false that it would be funny if it wasn't so outrageous. Voegelin thought that trying to reform the world in any way was "gnostic" and was "immanentizing the eschaton" by trying to create Heaven on Earth. Thus, the only proper course is to do nothing, and never, ever try too hard to fix things. If this sounds completely crazy, it's because it is. And this was the stated philosophy of mainstream American intellectual conservatives for decades. Some of these autistic nerds even wore t-shirts saying "Don't immanentize the eschaton"!!!! Complete idiots. I have a particular beef with Voegelin, because I have great sympathy for ancient Gnosticism, which contains many profound ideas, and has been viciously and unfairly lied about, slandered, and vilified by countless wretches who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Reminds me of my Conservatives are Losers article - https://christendomcoalition.substack.com/p/what-is-the-christendom-coalition?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
It's baked into the philosophy. Russell Kirk in the Conservative Mind - “Conservatism never is more admirable than when it accepts changes that it disapproves, with good grace, for the sake of a general conciliation.”
Well done, Colin. This is a useful primer on the impotence of conservatism as described by Oakeshott and others. Obviously, our age seems to demand radicalization.
I know little about how politics feels on the street in the UK right now, so I’m curious: is the problem of impotent conservative psychology increasingly just an English phenomenon — a Burkean memory of common law, the monarchy, and other old, stable institutions?
As an American, my sense is that the cliché milquetoast “I just want to grill” guy barely exists anymore. Everyone I encounter seems radicalized in one direction or another.
The elderly white ladies who once had corny scripture on their bumper stickers have upgraded to simply “God Bless Israel.” They are openly talking about the end times — and they aren’t larping. They can’t stop discussing it. Since October 7, it’s all their pastors seem to feed them.
(Did you see the reporting about U.S. Army generals giving end-times sermons to young troops? That’s a real situation in Trump Country rn.)
Meanwhile, the (mostly white) local leftists are more energized than I’ve seen in my lifetime, across all age groups. Their complaints range from Elon Musk and “the kings” of tech to fascist Trump and his ICE raids. Rallies in freezing cold weather were common every Saturday, all winter.
Even the high-status, white high school Chads and Stacys openly meme about Nick Fuentes at local football and hockey games. Calling someone “brown clown” has become a common youthful insult (lol).
The MAGA base may be the most radicalized of all, precisely because it is almost completely apolitical. At this point it resembles a pure cult of personality. I honestly doubt that if Trump used a nuclear weapon his base would condemn it.
In my experience, temperamental conservatism mostly exists on X, where figures like Patrick Casey can make a comfortable living performing it. But I'm not well-traveled.
The conservative faces a few internal struggles - 1. to consider the idea that the "far right" might be correct on some key issues, 2. to admit to himself that they are, 3. to say it to others in public. Some of them can't even get past stage one of that process. It's all too frightening.
I wonder if I could tell who’s just a Conservative type if we had power, and if I’d still dislike him to any degree?
I believe that even the Holy Bible has something to say about this. God himself said He'd rather you be hot or cold. Middling = He'd spit out of His mouth. Well, same.
wrong interpretation, hot and cold mean use/function not radical one way or the other
I have found that when reading through the Bible, it becomes very personalized each time one reads, and the same verse can give us different meanings at different times of our lives. I think that’s what is so brilliant about the ancient text, but I always love to hear others interpretations to consider.
You’re right, that is why every single nation and collective expresses it differently. The trouble is that it wants to encompass infinite groups, but every group is different enough they’ll fight for their own way. Sure there’s helpful things contained in it, that’s why folk like it, but I think it’s weaponised and can be used to manipulate us in ways that would be impossible if we had a totally Native source for what is actually good about it. Unfortunately there is no recommended Native source other than fragments.
you are wrong and retarded
Talarico? That you?
As a Traditionalist, I have a very strict view on who can really be considered right-wing.
Conservatives are left-wing, and while many of them do indeed sympathise with us but too afraid to take a stand, most of them are actually progressives driving the speed limit or people who really want to go back to 1985 but no further.
I believe that a left-winger can be unmasked by being asked a set of gradually more and more radical questions with a left-wing and a right-wing answer to them. All conservatives will eventually reach a point at which they will side with communists against us.
Yup. That's why I abandoned the word conservative for Traditionalist. I would love to see a radical change in our society back to the norms of the pre 1789 world.