“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,
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.
Good read Woes. I do struggle a bit with the whole "we're not going to vote our way out of this crowd" because we indeed actually did vote our way into this current mess.
The funny part is, they only get what they want once they lose to the radicals. No matter how many times they said they thought Mitt Romney might be going a little too far to make the left understand they were only half heartedly supporting him (I know it sounds ridiculous, but this was a real thing), none of them got any acceptance until Trump raped all of them publicly and made them run screaming into the Democrats arms in total humiliation (cough Jonah Goldberg cough).
Economic conservatives are (classical) liberals. They can't oppose liberalism for that reason.
Although, you make a good point about the conformity to orthodoxy - it is true but informed by their underlying foundational principles, which are liberal.
I get the feeling that conservative writers, if they're any good, can make a comfortable living writing articles bemoaning the yoof of today; this isn't an option for the actual, strong Right, as Woes knows, he has Avrilian hoes but no dough.
Conservatives are permitted a looser rein but they know better than to try and jump the fence. Men like Peter Hitchens know their careers will be over if they start chatting with us. It's entirely possible they secretly agree with us but by God they don't want to lose their house, their private schools. They get too much out of the system to want to destroy or even reform it. This way they can salve their conscience, tell themselves they're taking a stand, and still get that six figure salary. They don't really experience the wickedness they decry: the money they get for decrying society protects them from the worst aspects of it.
I noted that Rupert Lowe seems to be wearing a Casio wristwatch, I was curious so googled, found he'd mentioned that London is so crime-ridden he has a cheap Casio as his London-watch. Says a lot about daily life in the yookay, it'll touch everyone, even the rich. Not much point having a Rolex if you dare not wear it outside.
In politics, labels are methods of propaganda and manipulation and gaslighting, and are not intended to mean anything of actual substance as occurs in other areas of life.
In religion the terms "Calvinist" and "Arminian" mean something, whether you agree or disagree with either. But if and when terms become political, they quickly lose their theological and philosophical and cultural and logical meanings and become terms only of use to define particular interests and loci of power and then make fools out of us all.
So, of course "Conservative" doesn't mean anything, least of all does it mean conserving anything besides the interests of those who make their living being a thing called a political "Conservative."
Same goes for "Liberals" whether classical "Liberals" and members of the "Labour" party who are not "liberal" in any way and most certainly do not give a flying frigola about people who actually labour for their daily bread.
I think the problem of politicians lying is more of a problem of believing the lies of the politicians you think you agree with than it is of not believing the politicians that you don't agree with. I don't care if Keir Starmer lies to me, it's the lies of Reform and/or Restore that concern me.
Are you saying you think that the solution is absolute monarchy, Louis XIV style, "L'etat C'est Moi?"
John Locke believed in limited monarchy, he was pretty smart. I've always been a small "r" republican, but I'm not stupid. I realize that if voting was a panacea the western world would not be in the pickle it's in. Another frilly French autocrat can't be much worse that what we've got.
Every group will have its internal and external enemies. Sometimes it is its belief, legal and political system that is causing harm to the group. If that is the case, then the failing systems have to be changed and the hierarchy of society changed to reflect the new system.
The problem now is there's an enormous political faction that is completely nihilistic, even homicidal and suicidal maniacs, who just want to not only watch the world burn but dance and sing with joy as it screams. They've turned severe mental illness into an political ideology.
Conservative by definition means maintaining the status quo, why would we want that? The battle is between the left and their plan for the destruction of the West and the radical right who want a renaissance.
Descriptive definitions are the most common, current, superficial usages. Most people weaponize language, yet cloak their daggers in “definitions” and “you know what we mean.” It might not be conscious, but there are even stronger meanings in words from their connotations and roots. As a prescriptivist, language should be an as impartially useful a tool as possible, and we should not cede ground in linguistic warfare.
Non-politicized definitions of conservative include caution, moderation, and tending to resist change. Conservation means keeping in a safe or entire state, the wise use of natural resources, and the preservation thereof, of biodiversity, and of cultural heritage and artifacts. Conserve comes from con-, meaning bringing together multiple objects or completeness, and servo, meaning to maintain, keep, protect, save, guard, watch over, heed, observe, preserve, or reserve. Why should people who cannot even conserve the objective environment, their own health, and ever changing traditions wield the richness and foundational strength of “conservative”?
To be conservative should mean to believe in and practice conservation as an inherent principle, for its own sake. What is there to “conserve” that values conservation itself? I would say that which exists most naturally and materially and integrally to be conserved. Someone who conserves information or cultural traditions doesn’t have to agree with them, but values the preservation of what exists, is wary of expenditure and mourns the loss of the raw resources or stock materials of reality. With the prefix con- emphasizing the whole, the collective recycles itself through individual loss or death and rebirth. What is more conservative than living conservation?
Depends on what you mean by the status quo. The modern libtard status quo is about changing everything just to cause chaos and confusion and manipulate people thereby. The libtards are ultra-conservative politically in that they want to remain in charge and increase the power and scope of the government they control. Anyone who wants a piece of the political pie has to play ball with the libtard "status quo" or they're unemployed or worse.
I'm just saying in politics the words mean nothing. You can't look at it as whether you want the status quo or not, if you do you'll be manipulated. Perhaps by saying you reject "conservative" "conservatism" you're actually saying you want to conserve humanity and decency and truth and justice as values and concepts of ancient origin.
I'm trying to express the idea of not accepting any of their words. I've been putting it this way:
Woke leftist libtards don't use language to inform or communicate thoughts, or ideas, they only use words for rhetorical purposes, as weapons of mass manipulation and gaslighting.
I'm kind of thinking that politics has become the method used to prevent the wrong people from effecting fair compromises and ensuring that the ruling class is able to impose their predatory compromises that they agree to amongst themselves.
My grandmother used to say that we need a new set of crooks, I'm seeing her point more as time goes on.
My Grandad too once said they’re all crooks. Rather sad that for nearly their whole lives they’ve known this and have not seen much hope in the system and felt they couldn’t do anything but tell us
“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.
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.
Good read Woes. I do struggle a bit with the whole "we're not going to vote our way out of this crowd" because we indeed actually did vote our way into this current mess.
The funny part is, they only get what they want once they lose to the radicals. No matter how many times they said they thought Mitt Romney might be going a little too far to make the left understand they were only half heartedly supporting him (I know it sounds ridiculous, but this was a real thing), none of them got any acceptance until Trump raped all of them publicly and made them run screaming into the Democrats arms in total humiliation (cough Jonah Goldberg cough).
Economic conservatives are (classical) liberals. They can't oppose liberalism for that reason.
Although, you make a good point about the conformity to orthodoxy - it is true but informed by their underlying foundational principles, which are liberal.
Instead of conservatives getting out of the way, perhaps the time has come for the so-called radical right to move them out of the way.
I get the feeling that conservative writers, if they're any good, can make a comfortable living writing articles bemoaning the yoof of today; this isn't an option for the actual, strong Right, as Woes knows, he has Avrilian hoes but no dough.
Conservatives are permitted a looser rein but they know better than to try and jump the fence. Men like Peter Hitchens know their careers will be over if they start chatting with us. It's entirely possible they secretly agree with us but by God they don't want to lose their house, their private schools. They get too much out of the system to want to destroy or even reform it. This way they can salve their conscience, tell themselves they're taking a stand, and still get that six figure salary. They don't really experience the wickedness they decry: the money they get for decrying society protects them from the worst aspects of it.
Yes... but I wonder how much longer such people will exist for. The situation is becoming unsustainable, I think.
I noted that Rupert Lowe seems to be wearing a Casio wristwatch, I was curious so googled, found he'd mentioned that London is so crime-ridden he has a cheap Casio as his London-watch. Says a lot about daily life in the yookay, it'll touch everyone, even the rich. Not much point having a Rolex if you dare not wear it outside.
In politics, labels are methods of propaganda and manipulation and gaslighting, and are not intended to mean anything of actual substance as occurs in other areas of life.
In religion the terms "Calvinist" and "Arminian" mean something, whether you agree or disagree with either. But if and when terms become political, they quickly lose their theological and philosophical and cultural and logical meanings and become terms only of use to define particular interests and loci of power and then make fools out of us all.
So, of course "Conservative" doesn't mean anything, least of all does it mean conserving anything besides the interests of those who make their living being a thing called a political "Conservative."
Same goes for "Liberals" whether classical "Liberals" and members of the "Labour" party who are not "liberal" in any way and most certainly do not give a flying frigola about people who actually labour for their daily bread.
I think the problem of politicians lying is more of a problem of believing the lies of the politicians you think you agree with than it is of not believing the politicians that you don't agree with. I don't care if Keir Starmer lies to me, it's the lies of Reform and/or Restore that concern me.
If you still believe in representative democracy, you are part of the problem.
Are you saying you think that the solution is absolute monarchy, Louis XIV style, "L'etat C'est Moi?"
John Locke believed in limited monarchy, he was pretty smart. I've always been a small "r" republican, but I'm not stupid. I realize that if voting was a panacea the western world would not be in the pickle it's in. Another frilly French autocrat can't be much worse that what we've got.
I actually think a constitutional republic run as a one-party theocracy is the answer.
Whatever the system you'll still have to deal with the woke commie libtards intent on destroying it, and you, and the whole civilization.
Every group will have its internal and external enemies. Sometimes it is its belief, legal and political system that is causing harm to the group. If that is the case, then the failing systems have to be changed and the hierarchy of society changed to reflect the new system.
The problem now is there's an enormous political faction that is completely nihilistic, even homicidal and suicidal maniacs, who just want to not only watch the world burn but dance and sing with joy as it screams. They've turned severe mental illness into an political ideology.
Conservative by definition means maintaining the status quo, why would we want that? The battle is between the left and their plan for the destruction of the West and the radical right who want a renaissance.
Descriptive definitions are the most common, current, superficial usages. Most people weaponize language, yet cloak their daggers in “definitions” and “you know what we mean.” It might not be conscious, but there are even stronger meanings in words from their connotations and roots. As a prescriptivist, language should be an as impartially useful a tool as possible, and we should not cede ground in linguistic warfare.
Non-politicized definitions of conservative include caution, moderation, and tending to resist change. Conservation means keeping in a safe or entire state, the wise use of natural resources, and the preservation thereof, of biodiversity, and of cultural heritage and artifacts. Conserve comes from con-, meaning bringing together multiple objects or completeness, and servo, meaning to maintain, keep, protect, save, guard, watch over, heed, observe, preserve, or reserve. Why should people who cannot even conserve the objective environment, their own health, and ever changing traditions wield the richness and foundational strength of “conservative”?
To be conservative should mean to believe in and practice conservation as an inherent principle, for its own sake. What is there to “conserve” that values conservation itself? I would say that which exists most naturally and materially and integrally to be conserved. Someone who conserves information or cultural traditions doesn’t have to agree with them, but values the preservation of what exists, is wary of expenditure and mourns the loss of the raw resources or stock materials of reality. With the prefix con- emphasizing the whole, the collective recycles itself through individual loss or death and rebirth. What is more conservative than living conservation?
Depends on what you mean by the status quo. The modern libtard status quo is about changing everything just to cause chaos and confusion and manipulate people thereby. The libtards are ultra-conservative politically in that they want to remain in charge and increase the power and scope of the government they control. Anyone who wants a piece of the political pie has to play ball with the libtard "status quo" or they're unemployed or worse.
I'm just saying in politics the words mean nothing. You can't look at it as whether you want the status quo or not, if you do you'll be manipulated. Perhaps by saying you reject "conservative" "conservatism" you're actually saying you want to conserve humanity and decency and truth and justice as values and concepts of ancient origin.
I'm trying to express the idea of not accepting any of their words. I've been putting it this way:
Woke leftist libtards don't use language to inform or communicate thoughts, or ideas, they only use words for rhetorical purposes, as weapons of mass manipulation and gaslighting.
Good points.
I'm kind of thinking that politics has become the method used to prevent the wrong people from effecting fair compromises and ensuring that the ruling class is able to impose their predatory compromises that they agree to amongst themselves.
My grandmother used to say that we need a new set of crooks, I'm seeing her point more as time goes on.
My Grandad too once said they’re all crooks. Rather sad that for nearly their whole lives they’ve known this and have not seen much hope in the system and felt they couldn’t do anything but tell us
Well said good sir!