No, if they want to go full sedition, let them secede. Then wait maybe a year for people to move where they want, then build a wall on that border.
We Need To Stop Calling Ourselves Conservatives
- Thread starter DarthOne
- Start date
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
While I understand the sentiment you really don't want to be forced to sing "God save Biden" or God save Fetterman" trust me you really don't.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Disliking your President is one thing.
Actively seeking the downfall of the United States is another.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
fair
But anyway, back on topic of a name change: if you are going to do one, I really think revolutionary is a good choice. It isn't poisonous in the US because of the revolution, allows all the Tea Party Cosplayers to have backed in desire to pull out the costumes again, and portrays what you seek to accomplish as radical and similar to what happened in the past: a massive teardown of/separation from an unjust oppressive government.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
what about the "Liberty Party" or the "Independence Party"?
Liberty party is too close to the Libertarian party, you'd have name recognition issues. You could just join the libertarians if that's what you wanted.
But a fair amount of the conservative movement is neocons or people who fly a thin blue line flag, so they wouldn't fit, and we don't want them. Independence party isn't great unless you want secession.
Honestly, I wouldn't rename the party. Name recognition is too useful, especially on ballots.
Uhh... sedition is very different than secession. If only the far left in the US wanted to secede, we probably could have things sorted out ages ago. But the fact of the matter is they don't want to secede, they want to make everyone live by their rules (as witnessed by the wailing and nashing of teeth over the overturning of Roe). They don't want Federalism or live and let live.
Basically, what the person was saying was that sedition, that is "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch", I expect in this case meaning conduct, since even seditious speech is protected, needs to be prosecuted.
You want examples of what could be consider sedition? Those who organized and participated in the various left wing riots over the last decade should be rounded up and jailed. Rioting ain't protected speech or assembly, and the BLM rioters as well as the anti-Trump rioters in 2016 all should have been rounded up and jailed, and those who organized those efforts then prosecuted, and those who funded them also pursued to the fullest extent of the law. Frankly, given the FBI's response to the Jan6 riots its clear that the government has the capability, to pursue them in that way, they simply chose not to. Which means that arguably there are those in government who supported those actions who also likely need to be prosecuted...
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Precisely.
In the English context, enemies of the Crown cannot be allowed to prosper. Oh they may run their mouths wherever they'd like. But if they translate that into action, then the hammer gets brought down.
Although I'd argue there's the caveat of "not in the classroom." Give them the opportunity, and the left will gladly brainwash another generation of traitors. Get them out of the damn schools.
As for the topic, no, "Conservative" does just fine. The issue is that we've become a touch too liberal for our own good and have thus lost sight of having a goal in the first place. Our contention is that many, many, things should stay exactly the way they are. When change happens, it should be in accordance with the history and character of our countries.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
the question is what defines accordance with the history and character of our countries. Not even the first Americans could agree proper. This is honestly one of the reasons why the political spectrum is a crap limpness test.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
There's a tacit implication that you really need to think things through before you make any serious changes.
We should embody the words of one G. K. Chesterton: "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."
Skallagrim
Well-known member
The interesting thing about conservatism -- as traditionally (and as such, genuinely) understood -- is that in many different contexts, it represents the same fundamental values... but advocates different expressions of those values, which are suited to the specific circumstances. Thus, you get a wide community of shared values, but enriched by enormous diversity of (local) cultural forms.
Progressivism, on the other hand, talks a lot about diversity, but without fail supports the imposition of generalism, universalism and centralism. Everything ends up the same.
Look at traditional architecture of cultures the wortld over. Countless different expressions of form, but you see the same (very human) ideas working through all of them. Then witness modern architecture: it's the same everywhere, and it's all completely devoid of human scale and connection.
A traditional Dutch house and an English cottage don't look the same, they have different expressions of form. But when you compare them to some fascist monstrosity created by Le Corbusier, you realise that the two "conservative" structures are both expressions of the same human idea, while Le Corbusier's building is all about trampling on the human spirit.
(And this approach tells you far more about the essence of things than any political debate.)
Likewise, we should never put up a fence unless we know what effect that will have. Many political policies of this and the last century, unfortunately, did both. They tore down metaphorical fences that served a good purpose (which they didn't comprehend or appreciate), and they put up many new metaphorical fences that caused great harm (which they didn't understand or foresee).
Chesterton was also a proponent of localism, arguing that nearly all decisions should be made by the people directly involved, not by central planners unfamiliar with the specifics of a given situation. I quite agree.
Last edited:
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
I went from far left to far right than to nationalconservative and then I said fuck all of that they all suck. That's my take just from reading the title.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
There is nothing left that is worth conserving. When the institutions are owned by the enemy, conservatism is just conserving the power of people who want you destroyed. Only by relinquishing your lingering attachement to the current system can you see clearly, act properly and work to defeat it.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Fleeing from an enemy that will never relent does not sound like a good idea to me. I'd rather stand my ground, come what may.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Stand your ground for what exactly? The thing you are 'standing guard' over IS the enemy. Time to build something new, and instead of defending what is, at best, a decaying corpse, go on the attack.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
The political is not the real. What you (ought to) defend is not the system, but the world upon which that system is presently imposed and inflicted.
Now, my contention is that you cannot defeat the system, but it is inherently self-destructive. So you need patience, and you need to survive the rather violent collapse. And in the meantime, part of a worth-while survival is preserving things of beauty-- both material and immaterial.
I don't speak for others, but my own conservatism isn't political; it's cultural. I want to conserve the things that our political class seeks to destroy. You're thinking that "to conserve" means "defending the system", but to me at least, it means "defending things from the system".
Diversity and equality are mutually exclusive things.
Freedom and equality are when you get down to it mutually exclusive. Stability and equality are also mutually exclusive.
Any thing that results in a different outcome is by nature anti equality, and time after time we see that equality doesn't bring people up it just tears people down. The most monsterous regiems of our modern era all came to power on the promises of equality and filled the grave yards with the bodies of innocent people.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
...why?
These people, first and foremost, are morons. They've got where they've got because the right of yesteryear fell asleep at the wheel, not through tactical brilliance. And decades of power have left them fat and easily frightened.
Defeating them is no easy task but it is more doable than some think, I reckon.