We Need To Stop Calling Ourselves Conservatives

DarthOne

☦️
We Need To Stop Calling Ourselves Conservatives


The conservative project has failed, and conservatives need to forge a new political identity that reflects our revolutionary moment.

Given the state of America in 2022, conservatives should stop calling themselves conservatives.

Why? Because the conservative project has largely failed, and it is time for a new approach. Conservatives have long defined their politics in terms of what they wish to conserve or preserve — individual rights, family values, religious freedom, and so on. Conservatives, we are told, want to preserve the rich traditions and civilizational achievements of the past, pass them on to the next generation, and defend them from the left. In America, conservatives and classical liberals alike rightly believe an ascendent left wants to dismantle our constitutional system and transform America into a woke dystopia. The task of conservatives, going back many decades now, has been to stop them.



In an earlier era, this made sense. There was much to conserve. But any honest appraisal of our situation today renders such a definition absurd. After all, what have conservatives succeeded in conserving? In just my lifetime, they have lost much: marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years, the First Amendment, any semblance of control over our borders, a fundamental distinction between men and women, and, especially of late, the basic rule of law.

Calling oneself a conservative in today’s political climate would be like saying one is a conservative because one wants to preserve the medieval European traditions of arranged marriage and trial by combat. Whatever the merits of those practices, you cannot preserve or defend something that is dead. Perhaps you can retain a memory of it or knowledge of it. But that is not what conservatism was purportedly about. It was about maintaining traditions and preserving Western civilization as a living and vibrant thing.

Well, too late. Western civilization is dying. The traditions and practices that conservatives champion are, at best, being preserved only in an ever-shrinking private sphere. At worst, they are being trampled to dust. They certainly do not form the basis of our common culture or civic life, as they did for most of our nation’s history.

To talk now of “family values” is to assume that there are enough Americans able and willing to marry and raise children together for something like “family values” to matter in the public discourse, much less in the halls of power. To talk of defending “religious freedom” is to misapprehend that the real risk today is widespread irreligion, which will leave so few religious Americans in the coming generations that the government and large corporations will inevitably — and easily — persecute them.


Conservatives are still invoking these things as if they are magic incantations that can roll back time, just as they did during the crucial decades of the past half-century when a cultural and technological revolution was re-making America before their eyes, and they did nothing to stop it.

In a recent essay for Compact, Jon Askonas argues convincingly that the conservative project failed because “it didn’t take into account the revolutionary principle of technology, and its intrinsic connection to the telos of sheer profit.” Conservatives, he says, were too obsessed with “left-wing revolutionary politics” and missed the real threat, which was technological change so swift and powerful it fundamentally reordered society, swept tradition aside, and unleashed a moral relativism that rendered the conservative project obsolete.

Instead of questioning these technologies, asking whether they would contribute to human flourishing, conservatives acquiesced to their inevitability and focused instead on narrower issues. The result has been the transformation of society within the span of a single human lifetime, and with it the wholesale destruction of our traditions and the looming implosion of Western civilization.

While it might be necessary, as Askonas argues, to enact a serious program of technological development to build a future that supports human flourishing, it is also the case that to do so on a scale sufficient to save our country will require political power — and the willingness to use it.


So what kind of politics should conservatives today, as inheritors of a failed movement, adopt? For starters, they should stop thinking of themselves as conservatives (much less as Republicans) and start thinking of themselves as radicals, restorationists, and counterrevolutionaries. Indeed, that is what they are, whether they embrace those labels or not.

They might, looking to American history for inspiration, conjure up the image of the Pilgrims — those iron-willed and audacious Christians who refused to accept the terms set by the mainstream of their time and set out to build something entirely new, to hew it out of the wilderness of the New World, even at great personal cost.

Or they might claim the mantle of revolutionaries, invoking the Founding Fathers’ view (or, at least, Thomas Jefferson’s) that periodic revolution to preserve liberty and civil society has always been and always will be necessary.

Whatever the term or image, the imperative that conservatives must break from the past and forge a new political identity cannot be overstated. It is time now for something new, for a new way of thinking and speaking about what conservative politics should be. The fusionism of past decades, in which conservatives made common cause with market-obsessed libertarians and foreign policy neocons, is finished. So too is Conservatism Inc. and the establishment GOP it enabled, whose first priority was always tax cuts for big business at the expense of everything else. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 heralded a populist wave and the end of Republican politics as we knew it, and now we are in uncharted waters.

To be sure, there has been plenty of talk on the right lately about what should be done differently now. Some, such as Sohrab Ahmari, Gladden Pappin, and Adrian Vermeule (along with a larger cohort of conservative Catholic thinkers), advocate a conservatism that is comfortable with big government and in fact sees it as necessary not only for the common good but to tame what Ahmari recently called the “private tyranny” of woke corporations empowered by unrestrained market forces. Conservative Catholics, he argues, should today claim ownership of a pro-worker, even pro-union political agenda that once belonged to the left, and which produced generations of Democrat-voting Catholic workers.

Indeed, a willingness to embrace government power has been a topic of fruitful debate on the “New Right” in recent years, as it should be. However uncomfortable traditional “small-government” conservatives might be with Ahmari’s argument, it is more or less true.

Put bluntly, if conservatives want to save the country they are going to have to rebuild and in a sense re-found it, and that means getting used to the idea of wielding power, not despising it. Why? Because accommodation or compromise with the left is impossible. One need only consider the speed with which the discourse shifted on gay marriage, from assuring conservatives ahead of the 2015 Obergefell decision that gay Americans were only asking for toleration, to the never-ending persecution of Jack Phillips.

The left will only stop when conservatives stop them, which means conservatives will have to discard outdated and irrelevant notions about “small government.” The government will have to become, in the hands of conservatives, an instrument of renewal in American life — and in some cases, a blunt instrument indeed.

To stop Big Tech, for example, will require using antitrust powers to break up the largest Silicon Valley firms. To stop universities from spreading poisonous ideologies will require state legislatures to starve them of public funds. To stop the disintegration of the family might require reversing the travesty of no-fault divorce, combined with generous subsidies for families with small children. Conservatives need not shy away from making these arguments because they betray some cherished libertarian fantasy about free markets and small government. It is time to clear our minds of cant.

In other contexts, wielding government power will mean a dramatic expansion of the criminal code. It will not be enough, for example, to reach an accommodation with the abortion regime, to agree on “reasonable limits” on when unborn human life can be snuffed out with impunity. As Abraham Lincoln once said of slavery, we must become all one thing or all the other. The Dobbs decision was in a sense the end of the beginning of the pro-life cause. Now comes the real fight, in state houses across the country, to outlaw completely the barbaric practice of killing the unborn.

Conservatives had better be ready for it, and Republican politicians, if they want to stay in office, had better have an answer ready when they are asked what reasonable limits to abortion restrictions they would support. The answer is: none, for the same reason they would not support reasonable limits to restrictions on premeditated murder.

On the transgender question, conservatives will have to repudiate utterly the cowardly position of people like David French, in whose malformed worldview Drag Queen Story Hour at a taxpayer-funded library is a “blessing of liberty.” Conservatives need to get comfortable saying in reply to people like French that Drag Queen Story Hour should be outlawed; that parents who take their kids to drag shows should be arrested and charged with child abuse; that doctors who perform so-called “gender-affirming” interventions should be thrown in prison and have their medical licenses revoked; and that teachers who expose their students to sexually explicit material should not just be fired but be criminally prosecuted.

If all that sounds radical, fine. It need not, at this late hour, dissuade conservatives in the least. Radicalism is precisely the approach needed now because the necessary task is nothing less than radical and revolutionary.

To those who worry that power corrupts, and that once the right seizes power it too will be corrupted, they certainly have a point. If conservatives manage to save the country and rebuild our institutions, will they ever relinquish power and go the way of Cincinnatus? It is a fair question, and we should attend to it with care after we have won the war.

For now, there are only two paths open to conservatives. Either they awake from decades of slumber to reclaim and re-found what has been lost, or they will watch our civilization die. There is no third road.


Constitutionalists or Restorationists does sound more in line with our party...
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
We Need To Stop Calling Ourselves Conservatives





Constitutionalists or Restorationists does sound more in line with our party...
Lol, the person doesn't believe in individual rights at all. Nor are they paying attention to the world around them. The campaign to get rid of small government makes him only slightly less a threat to the individual rights he pretends to champion than the left.

Government is the problem. Government funded the universities that churn out leftists. Government is funding the destruction of the nuclear family.


Meanwhile, the guys black pilling when you need to white pill: after many years, people are finally 'woke' (to steal a term) to the problem: marxism's long march through the institutions. Yes, you were losing. Now you guys finally realize that and are fighting back. But you don't need government to force truth on people. All you need is government to stop spreading lies.

Also, why the despair when Roe v Wade got overturned, and a new era of gun rights is arriving? Two huge victories for individual rights?


Now as for the name question (instead of the assorted other stupidity in this post) do conservatives perhaps need a new name? I'd say it'd probably be useful. I'd retake revolutionary as a call back to the American revolution, and it appeals to the youth. Really, a name is just branding. Do be wary about what you'd lose with a rebranding though.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
I don't know what a good name for the next iteration of the right would be but conservative ain't it.

I do remember that Democrats used to be mocked as "tax-and-spend liberals" because everyone likes a tax cut by politicans who weren't - and still aren't - all that interested in making the numbers on the cheques which get written also get smaller.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
The OP isn't wrong in that 'small gov obsession' is no longer truly viable; you can either ride the bull or get run over by it, but the Right does not have the strength force it back in the cage.

With how interconnected and interdependent the modern world is, there is simply no way to make the gov 'smaller' without making existing problems worse in the process. We don't want to become neocon hawks or Deep State bureaucrats, however the Right does need to realize that it cannot shrink the government successfully till it damn near full controls the gov, which is a long march through the institutions to achieve.

However, the insights are rather moot, because the stolen election of 2020, and that rendering US politics FUBAR. If conservatives had listen to this sort of advice a decade or two ago, maybe it would have mattered.

Now the Right has two choices; either learn to deal with the new realities of modern politics, and try to rebuild a system that is likely beyond repair while their enemies keep marching on, or learn to live with Dem stupidity in perpetuity, and plant the seeds of a new conservative movement that might get us back to pre-Wu Flu US in 100 years or so.
 

TheRomanSlayer

Unipolarity is for Subhuman Trogdolytes
Or another, but even worse option: radicalization to the point of embracing extreme politics. If the Left had maintained their radical stance, it is only a matter of time before blowback begins, and even I'm starting to doubt my 'conservative' stance at all. Possibly plunging into the world of radical actions in the future, given the WEF and their antics.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
I prefer calling myself a member of the "Optimates" - for the good - versus the Populares - who are for what is popular.

Sorry man your not an opimates, your a populares.

The left wing establishment are the optimates of this historical cycle how do you know? Look at what their able to get away with. They are the establishment of this era.


As for the OP we will see a return to tradition, but people only do that after they have exausted all the other options first. The complaints he has?

That's modernity this is not the first time humanity has been through a modern period the ending of it will suck hard balls but when it ends life will actually be pretty good.

For our grandchildren.
 
The OP isn't wrong in that 'small gov obsession' is no longer truly viable; you can either ride the bull or get run over by it, but the Right does not have the strength force it back in the cage.

With how interconnected and interdependent the modern world is, there is simply no way to make the gov 'smaller' without making existing problems worse in the process. We don't want to become neocon hawks or Deep State bureaucrats, however the Right does need to realize that it cannot shrink the government successfully till it damn near full controls the gov, which is a long march through the institutions to achieve.

However, the insights are rather moot, because the stolen election of 2020, and that rendering US politics FUBAR. If conservatives had listen to this sort of advice a decade or two ago, maybe it would have mattered.

Now the Right has two choices; either learn to deal with the new realities of modern politics, and try to rebuild a system that is likely beyond repair while their enemies keep marching on, or learn to live with Dem stupidity in perpetuity, and plant the seeds of a new conservative movement that might get us back to pre-Wu Flu US in 100 years or so.

uh how bout no. I'd rather fry than concede to authoritarians.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
The OP isn't wrong in that 'small gov obsession' is no longer truly viable; you can either ride the bull or get run over by it, but the Right does not have the strength force it back in the cage.
The right could force it back into the cage, it just doesn't want to. It doesn't really care. Those who don't care are just a slightly less bad left, and just as willing to destroy the country, but will also always lose because the left is better at exploiting power. Everytime people try to 'own the libs' using government power, the libs get in power and go "It's free real estate". The FBI who did COINTELPRO? that got redirected from the leftists to investigating only right wing groups. They didn't bother infiltrating Antifa. Bush's compassionate conservatism simply funded the public schools and gave little to nothing in the way school choice.

This is normal. The leftists already know how to defeat power. They do it all the time. For example, the BLM protests are a great example. Wanna know why the cops didn't do enough? Because the activists stole from the SDS the idea of a cop response = a win. If cops responded, they'd do enough to make themselves look like the victim, and then embarrass the police department and possibly get people fired. If they didn't respond, riots. They want you to try to crush them with force, because that's a massive PR win for them.

The solution? Watch them drown in freedom and truth. They'll whine and cry about that too, but it will expose them as liars when they do it. The don't say gay bill (I know that's not what it actually says) is a great example, as it limits government from spreading lies. So is the Martha's Vineyard illegal immigrant stuff, as it exposes hypocrisy.

The real solution? Defund the colleges. State-wise, privatize the schools or at least go for school choice. Fix the welfare system so it encourages marriage, not single people (I'd rather none, but that's very unlikely). Embrace freedom, and it will drown the commies just as it did the USSR.
 
Last edited:

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
uh how bout no. I'd rather fry than concede to authoritarians.
You don't have to concede to authoritarians, but you cannot deny that if you do not wield power, you are at the mercy of those who do.

Because without power, it doesn't matter what your ideology/ideological goal is, you won't be able to achieve it.
The right could force it back into the cage, it just doesn't want to. It doesn't really care. Those who don't care are just a slightly less bad left, and just as willing to destroy the country, but will also always lose because the left is better at exploiting power. Everytime people try to 'own the libs' using government power, the libs get in power and go "It's free real estate". The FBI who did COINTELPRO? that got redirected from the leftists to investigating only right wing groups. They didn't bother infiltrating Antifa. Bush's compassionate conservatism simply funded the public schools and gave little to nothing in the way school choice.

This is normal. The leftists already know how to defeat power. They do it all the time. For example, the BLM protests are a great example. Wanna know why the cops didn't do enough? Because the activists stole from the SDS the idea of a cop response = a win. If cops responded, they'd do enough to make themselves look like the victim, and then embarrass the police department and possibly get people fired. If they didn't respond, riots. They want you to try to crush them with force, because that's a massive PR win for them.

The solution? Watch them drown in freedom and truth. They'll whine and cry about that too, but it will expose them as liars when they do it. The don't say gay bill (I know that's not what it actually says) is a great example, as it limits government from spreading lies. So is the Martha's Vineyard illegal immigrant stuff, as it exposes hypocrisy.

The real solution? Defund the colleges. State-wise, privatize the schools or at least go for school choice. Fix the welfare system so it encourages marriage, not single people (I'd rather none, but that's very unlikely). Embrace freedom, and it will drown the commies just as it did the USSR.
Nice aspirations and all, but lets be realistic; without the ability to control the reins of power on a national level, your wishlist is not achievable.

The reality is the future desired by libertarians/AnCaps isn't viable, and neither is the future the 'old Right' thought they were going to have in their retirement years. A 'New Right' cannot be afraid of power, if it wants to start actually reversing the damage the Left has done, and it cannot be shakled to the outdated 'small gov, best gov' mindset that hamstrung the Boomer-cons.

Ironically the neocons are being proved right, after a couple decades of frivolous wars, by Putin going full retard and the gear they bought to fight the commies is actually doing what it was meant for.

I do not think 'Jesusland' is a viable future for the Right, but I do think that the Right cannot unfuck the nations shit by just wanting to close down agencies and offices, even if some sorely should be closed down.

We live in an ugly, brutal political reality now, where the 'nice' options are gone. And just 'exposing the truth' to the masses...look, you cannot ignore the PR war and the part the mass media plays in it; you have to address those issues before you can really expose any 'truth' to the masses.

Of course, with elections and US politics FUBAR anyway, trying to get the reins to power, without them being hijacked by Uniparty controlled opposition RINOs, is going to be a tall order to begin with.

The best victory the Right can have right now is to have more kids, and to keep those kids out of public schools whenever possible. Built a foundation for the fight against the Dems in that manner, because it's the most effective one the Right still has access to.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Nice aspirations and all, but lets be realistic; without the ability to control the reins of power on a national level, your wishlist is not achievable.
First, it totally is without national support, and is actively being enacted at a local level. Most of what I desire other than the defunding of universities can be done at the state level. School choice, local versions of welfare, etc. The Don't say gay bill was also state level, but could even be done at a local level as well. The nullification of gun laws by refusing to allow cops to cooperate. The legalization of weed. etc.

Second, the type of power you envision is the one that needs national support.

The reality is the future desired by libertarians/AnCaps isn't viable, and neither is the future the 'old Right' thought they were going to have in their retirement years. A 'New Right' cannot be afraid of power, if it wants to start actually reversing the damage the Left has done, and it cannot be shakled to the outdated 'small gov, best gov' mindset that hamstrung the Boomer-cons.
Lol, the boomer cons rarely bothered with a small gov mindset. They just watched the government grow and grow without doing nearly anything about it other than lip service. You are advocating for more of the same, but claiming it's something different. You'll just end up giving gas to the runaway car.

We live in an ugly, brutal political reality now, where the 'nice' options are gone. And just 'exposing the truth' to the masses...look, you cannot ignore the PR war and the part the mass media plays in it; you have to address those issues before you can really expose any 'truth' to the masses.
... Did you read my post? It was all about how to win a PR war. In contrast, you want to surrender the PR battle on the altar of "power good". No, power is bad for the right. If you have it, the left wins the PR battle by pointing out how you use it, then uses that to retake the power. If the left has it, they use it to do bad stuff. Better it be destroyed.

Of course, with elections and US politics FUBAR anyway, trying to get the reins to power, without them being hijacked by Uniparty controlled opposition RINOs, is going to be a tall order to begin with.
You are advocating for the same things the RINO's are advocating for: bigger government, just with a smiley sticker.

No what is needed is revolutionary: get rid of government. The only option that both RINOs and Dems abhor. The few times it gets tried, it succeeds.

@Proxy 404
Where on earth do you get authoritarian from?

Our goal is LESS centralized control over individuals.
In fairness, the essay reads as such. Wanting more state power to X is the way of authoritarians, and I don't trust the author when they say "But this time it'll be used for individual rights!" Because every successful authoritarian promises you good stuff and delivers only pain and control, why should he be different?
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
First, it totally is without national support, and is actively being enacted at a local level. Most of what I desire other than the defunding of universities can be done at the state level. School choice, local versions of welfare, etc. The Don't say gay bill was also state level, but could even be done at a local level as well. The nullification of gun laws by refusing to allow cops to cooperate. The legalization of weed. etc.

Second, the type of power you envision is the one that needs national support.
And without national level power, those local moves won't stick or spread, and can be reverse themselves by edicts from DC or rulings by SCOTUS.
Lol, the boomer cons rarely bothered with a small gov mindset. They just watched the government grow and grow without doing nearly anything about it other than lip service. You are advocating for more of the same, but claiming it's something different. You'll just end up giving gas to the runaway car.
The car is going to get gas no matter what, the only difference is your idea doesn't even attempt to regain control of the steering wheel.

... Did you read my post? It was all about how to win a PR war. In contrast, you want to surrender the PR battle on the altar of "power good". No, power is bad for the right. If you have it, the left wins the PR battle by pointing out how you use it, then uses that to retake the power. If the left has it, they use it to do bad stuff. Better it be destroyed.
I read it, and saw the usual AnCap/libertarian lines that are behind the times and which are ultimately self-defeating.

You do not win the PR war by trying to shy away from power, you win the PR war by taking power in society and media, and showing the Lefties lies about the Right are just that, lies.
You are advocating for the same things the RINO's are advocating for: bigger government, just with a smiley sticker.

No what is needed is revolutionary: get rid of government. The only option that both RINOs and Dems abhor. The few times it gets tried, it succeeds.
And 'getting rid of government' is a worthless take that does nothing but show you just want to virtue signal to other AnCaps and the 'small gov right' about how 'pure' you are.

You aren't getting rid of government, you aren't likely to be able to shrink it meaningfully, and you will make even more parts of the center look at libertarian as out-of-touch ideologues.

What I want isn't authoritarianism, however I am not naive enough to believe that the Right can accomplish many of it's stated goals without controlling just as much of the gov as the Left currently do. Which means the Right and libertarians are already decades behind the curve.

Deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.
 
And without national level power, those local moves won't stick or spread, and can be reverse themselves by edicts from DC or rulings by SCOTUS.
The car is going to get gas no matter what, the only difference is your idea doesn't even attempt to regain control of the steering wheel.

I read it, and saw the usual AnCap/libertarian lines that are behind the times and which are ultimately self-defeating.

You do not win the PR war by trying to shy away from power, you win the PR war by taking power in society and media, and showing the Lefties lies about the Right are just that, lies.
And 'getting rid of government' is a worthless take that does nothing but show you just want to virtue signal to other AnCaps and the 'small gov right' about how 'pure' you are.

You aren't getting rid of government, you aren't likely to be able to shrink it meaningfully, and you will make even more parts of the center look at libertarian as out-of-touch ideologues.

What I want isn't authoritarianism, however I am not naive enough to believe that the Right can accomplish many of it's stated goals without controlling just as much of the gov as the Left currently do. Which means the Right and libertarians are already decades behind the curve.

Deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.

If you really think all of this Why are you here and not vouching for the left on Twitter and trying to work up the ranks there? If you really think the battle was lost a long time ago you are fraternizing with the wrong side.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
If you really think all of this Why are you here and not vouching for the left on Twitter and trying to work up the ranks there? If you really think the battle was lost a long time ago you are fraternizing with the wrong side.

because that's functionally impossible.

The left is in a purity cycle and is an environment of constant witch hunts. Keeping them happy is impossible, apeasing them increasingly difficult. They currently hold the whip hand yes but they make enemies where ever they go. The pendulum will turn it will just be a really hard and difficult path.

Barcle has decided to suffer along side the people who are also fucked rather then get into a cultist race that simply can not be one and barely even survived.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
If you really think all of this Why are you here and not vouching for the left on Twitter and trying to work up the ranks there? If you really think the battle was lost a long time ago you are fraternizing with the wrong side.
Because I hate illegal immigration, hate tranny shit, and hate the lies the Dems have been selling for decades about both.

And it's not that I think the war was lost long ago, as much as I think the Right has repeatedly lost major social battles because they wanted to grill and pray while the Left infil'd every important institution, getting lead along by USSR sympathizers the whole way.

I think the Right can start winning again, it just cannot do so while trying to cling to the 'small gov, best gov' idea, or cling to the facade of 'fair play' in politics, that is simply no longer realistic.

I want the Right to fight smarter, and cast aside the illusions of the past, so they can win more going forward. It's why I do not care about my 'conservative cred', because I don't care about being seen as a 'conservative' of the normal sort.
because that's functionally impossible.

The left is in a purity cycle and is an environment of constant witch hunts. Keeping them happy is impossible, apeasing them increasingly difficult. They currently hold the whip hand yes but they make enemies where ever they go. The pendulum will turn it will just be a really hard and difficult path.

Barcle has decided to suffer along side the people who are also fucked rather then get into a cultist race that simply can not be one and barely even survived.
Pretty much; I know what the Left is like on the inside, I've lived in the belly of the beast for a long damn time, and I know how to fuck with it/hurt it's goals/fight it smarter.

I've just realized most on the Right do not want to hear the sort of insights that background can bring, even if it could help them win, because the Right has an issue with internal propaganda and wanting to cling to certain images/views of the world that are no longer realistic or practically achievable. The old Right keeps fighting the Left using these outdated/unrealistic assumptions, while ignoring the people the Left has alienated, who are trying to help it adapt it's tactics.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
The left is in a purity cycle and is an environment of constant witch hunts. Keeping them happy is impossible, apeasing them increasingly difficult. They currently hold the whip hand yes but they make enemies where ever they go. The pendulum will turn it will just be a really hard and difficult path.

Barcle has decided to suffer along side the people who are also fucked rather then get into a cultist race that simply can not be one and barely even survived.
No, his idea of "seize the power and USE IT" is rather the opposite of stoically facing a troubled age in the knowledge that "this, too, shall pass". He very much wants to enter into the "race", as you put it, except on the other side. (He also wants to apply a strategy of "beating the left by being more like the left" -- which never works out for the right -- but that's another topic.)

The point that "if you do not wield power, you are at the mercy of those who do" is a distilled version of Plato's political attitude, which was... terrible. And has led to incomprehensible amounts of suffering. The alternative is the path of Epikouros, who advised all men of character to avoid tainting themselves with dirty business (such as politics) and to make a private life worth living. To survive the times, and to contribute by planting seeds for a better time.

This means sticking to your principles, living morally, and staying out of the senseless shitfight.

It's how the followers of Jesus brought the faith to the Roman Empire. Not by trying to seize the government and butcher the other party, but by living -- and at times, dying -- as examples that men wanted to follow.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
No, his idea of "seize the power and USE IT" is rather the opposite of stoically facing a troubled age in the knowledge that "this, too, shall pass". He very much wants to enter into the "race", as you put it, except on the other side. (He also wants to apply a strategy of "beating the left by being more like the left" -- which never works out for the right -- but that's another topic.)

The point that "if you do not wield power, you are at the mercy of those who do" is a distilled version of Plato's political attitude, which was... terrible. And has led to incomprehensible amounts of suffering. The alternative is the path of Epikouros, who advised all men of character to avoid tainting themselves with dirty business (such as politics) and to make a private life worth living. To survive the times, and to contribute by planting seeds for a better time.

This means sticking to your principles, living morally, and staying out of the senseless shitfight.

It's how the followers of Jesus brought the faith to the Roman Empire. Not by trying to seize the government and butcher the other party, but by living -- and at times, dying -- as examples that men wanted to follow.
Epikouros was as naive as anyone else who think just because they do not care for politics, politics will just leave them alone. It's a mindset akin to just wanting to stick your head in the sand, because it's easier than fighting against the insanity.

Plato was right, and this has been proven again and again, and no amount of 'stoicism in the face of hard times' is going to fix shit; the world moves a fuck load faster now than it did in Plato's day, and even in his day Epikouros was shown to be wrong about the practical realities of the world.

Deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it to be; I've learned to deal with the world as it is, rather than as I wish it to be, and most of the Right would benefit from that sort of mindset.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
undeterred lies in the face of evidence
You seem to have missed the part where I gave a clear example that proves my point.

Once again, your cognitive dissonance strikes. You say that you "deal with the world as it is", but the opposite is true. The advice you give to conservatives always boils down to "be more centrist, guys! stop being so conservative!"

What a coincidence: you're a centrist who was disappointed with the Democrats swerving hard to the left, so you hopped onto the GOP bandwagon, and now you want to turn the GOP into a centrist party. Your advice is never "what's good for conservatives", because in reality, you are completely unable (or unwilling) to make any distinction between "what's good for conservatives" and "what Bacle happens to like (which is turning conservatism into centrism)".

You do nothing but focus on "the world as you wish it to be".

If there's one thing for certain, it's that the right will never benefit from adopting your mindset.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top