Britain Why Conservatives conserve nothing

[Fleiur]

Move to Mars.

No seriously, if the Right wants to create a bastion the Left will have a hard time touching, make the 'Red Planet' name literal. With Musk and his stuff in play, this is actually a medium-to-long term option now.

Edit: Space colonization is the best way to escape and rebuild from the Left's idiocy, if they get more power down here. Pay Musk to plop down some pre-fab equipment to make it self-sustaining, do it in multiple locations, and start moving conservative/centrist people out of easy reach of the Left.

How is that supposed to work out? We don't live in sci fi.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

the term murder has a very specific defenition related to circumstances, just like self-defence or piracy

Honestly, I think regardless of the reasons behind said killing, once you do it even to save another or to defend yourslef, you have blood on your hands

That said, back to the stuff about Conservatives moving elsewhere, I say you guys go off and create RAPTURE deep beneath the ocean and keep it secret as possible

And check the sort of thinking people got before letting em in and if you let the crazies in, hope to God being surrounded by guys who don't submit to them gradually changes their minds

 

[Duke Nukem]

How is that supposed to work out? We don't live in sci fi.

Mars colonies are possible, it's just gonna be awhile before they become viable.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Honestly at least in the US, based on my observations, the term "Conservative" doesn't really apply as much as it used to. The current "right wing" is essentially a broad coalition of traditionalists, more moderate conservatives, liberterians, centrists, and generally center-of left people. This is largely because the traditional "left wing" which used to be sane has gone so far left that anyone to the right of Marx is now basically considered right wing. Prominent American right-wing thought leaders like Tucker Carlson actually reaches common ground with people like Cenk Uyghur on certain issues as well as can be seen in the actual politicon debate they had. Tucker Carlson compared to the right wing we once knew 10-15 years ago would probably be considered center of right. He after all had a show on MSNBC of all places before he went to Fox News.

While this is a good thing as more people are pushing back against the toxicity of the current political environment, it also runs the risk of drowning out the voices of other other traditional conservatives. Though to be fair, the reason why the GOP lost in the 2010's was basically because Conservatives didn't really adapt and were using pretty stale and old fashioned talking points. One of the reasons why Obama was so popular was that he was seen as a massive breath of fresh air. Though of course he didn't really deliver on his promises of "change" which saw many people feeling burned and voting in favor of Trump as a massive protest vote. While Trump is frontrunner of the Republican Party, I wouldn't exactly call him a Conservative. "Trumpism" isn't really a strictly conservative movement as its more populist. Many of his voters were not really Republican and as a result, they didn't really turn out in 2018 for the midterm elections. Though with Trump's election, a massive political re-alignment has been taking place in terms of American politics.

The old guard traditional Republican establishment has largely been displaced from power. The Bush era partisans largely became the archetypical "never-Trumpers" and joined with the Democrats. Honestly I feel like the traditional political dynamics as we know it at least in the US, have completely changed. If Trump wins which I think he has good odds of winning, as his support among African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other groups increases the "right" would probably end up as a large coalition of conservatives and everyone else against the increasingly far-left dominated left wing.

 

[Bacle]

How is that supposed to work out? We don't live in sci fi.

We are getting damn close.

The tech is there, it's just the finances and logistics that need to be worked out.

 

[Deleted member 88]

As if the people who destroy civilization wouldn’t follow us to Mars or the Andromeda galaxy like fleas on a dog.

 

[Fleiur]

Mars colonies are possible, it's just gonna be awhile before they become viable.

Again, how is that supposed to work out? Can you show me sources on us being able to do this?

 

[Fleiur]

We are getting damn close.

The tech is there, it's just the finances and logistics that need to be worked out.

Okay, but I was asking for sources.

 

[Lanmandragon]

there is nothing wrong with just wanting to grill, there is nothing wrong with just wanting to live your life and be left alone.

In normal times through out most of human history, most elite. Be they royals, nobles, guild masters, religious leaders, generals, despots, and many others under stood the value of letting people like that be. We dont live in normal times.

There absolutely is alot wrong with ignoring what's happening until it's to late. Aka "just wanting to grill". You don't want to live in a dictatorrirship then your required to pay attention. It's really that simple you "just want to grill" then we'll you have to accept that others. Who do engage in politics will invariably rule you that's reality.

Mongols, for one. And they were pretty fucking successful, given 1/3 people in Asia is a direct decendants of Chingus or Koblai.

And I'd point to the Spartan's as well for how they viewed theft as a survival instinct needed for the battlefield, which influenced a lot of their culture.

As well, monogamy has not been the norm. Before recently marriages were mostly about inheritance and building power bases, not love or religious teachings. Having a mistress or two on the side, who's kids weren't in for inheritance, was rather the norm for most men with enough wealth to marry.

To outsiders or within the nation? As this are fundemetally different things. As the idea that people outside your tribe are people is pretty damn new. As for marriage having mistressesiw very much monogamy. If only legitimate children can inherit marriage has always been a legal distinction. Having a side hoe doesn't change that bro.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

There absolutely is alot wrong with ignoring what's happening until it's to late. Aka "just wanting to grill". You don't want to live in a dictatorrirship then your required to pay attention. It's really that simple you "just want to grill" then we'll you have to accept that others. Who do engage in politics will invariably rule you that's reality.

At the risk of opening a can of worms, does that mean kill or be killed?

 

[Lanmandragon]

At the risk of opening a can of worms, does that mean kill or be killed?

What? No it means that ignoring what's happening in government is retarded. Bro if I meant "kill or be killed" that's exactly what is say I those words even. Seriously there's no need to read "subtext" into my statements. I'm going to say EXACTLY what i mean straight up every time. Hell that's why I got banned from space battles.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

What? No it means that ignoring what's happening in government is retarded. Bro if I meant "kill or be killed" that's exactly what is say I those words even. Seriously there's no need to read "subtext" into my statements. I'm going to say EXACTLY what i mean straight up every time. Hell that's why I got banned from space battles.

ok, thanks for the clearing up. I was about to get really depressed. Guess I'm too used to reading in sub-text.

 

[Lanmandragon]

ok, thanks for the clearing up. I was about to get really depressed. Guess I'm too used to reading in sub-text.

TBF I promise I'm far more straightforward then 90% of people.

 

[Deleted member 88]

They have a...almost fossilized mindset and seem bent on trying to turn back a clock that only goes one

This is simultaneously profound and simultaneously depressing. Bacle, at the core, you’ve imbibed the progressivist/leftist/liberal view of history.

“the arc of history bends toward justice”, “the right side of history”, “history will be our judge”, “the arrow moves towards ever greater liberalism”. That history moves with a directionality, a sort of Telos towards Utopia, or at least closeness to it

This is probably the central and fundamental assumption of the left. And I think is our greatest problem, because your not alone Bacle, most of us have at some conscious or subconscious level accepted this paradigm.

Isn’t that ironic and funny really? We conservatives and “knuckle draggers” deep down believe in that Whiggish nonsense? At least most of us do, because we haven’t been able to free ourselves from it.

How can the “Right” win when it accepts the core theoretical and moral axiom of its enemy?

What we are seeing with MAP and Drag Queen Story Hour, and the like-is the completion of the liberal dream.

Maybe that’s where we went wrong. Maybe the Enlightenment was the problem.

I know there are some on the far right who go as far as to blame Christianity-for either it’s own Utopianism, or pre figured liberal universalism and leftism. I’m sure there are more obscure reactionaries who would blame Greek philosophy and ancient Hebrew religion too(in fact I’ve seen the latter).

You say the “clock only goes one way”.

Have you ever considered why you think this? How you came to develop this belief?

The same people who say this are SJWs, Antifa, BLM, and the Transgender movement by the way.

It’s a curious belief, and one that no one seems to be willing to discuss it or what it really means.

Maybe someone should do a synthesis-combine the whiggish liberalism with the Greek conception of the ages-as the ages go down, “Liberty” goes up. In a process of civilizational expansion and entropy.

But in the end, that’s why “conservatives” lose. And why centrists like yourself merely slow down progressivism, or not even that, you tap the break pedal to keep the acceleration manageable.

 

[almostinsane]

This is simultaneously profound and simultaneously depressing. Bacle, at the core, you’ve imbibed the progressivist/leftist/liberal view of history.

“the arc of history bends toward justice”, “the right side of history”, “history will be our judge”, “the arrow moves towards ever greater liberalism”. That history moves with a directionality, a sort of Telos towards Utopia, or at least closeness to it

This is probably the central and fundamental assumption of the left. And I think is our greatest problem, because your not alone Bacle, most of us have at some conscious or subconscious level accepted this paradigm.

Isn’t that ironic and funny really? We conservatives and “knuckle draggers” deep down believe in that Whiggish nonsense? At least most of us do, because we haven’t been able to free ourselves from it.

How can the “Right” win when it accepts the core theoretical and moral axiom of its enemy?

What we are seeing with MAP and Drag Queen Story Hour, and the like-is the completion of the liberal dream.

Maybe that’s where we went wrong. Maybe the Enlightenment was the problem.

I know there are some on the far right who go as far as to blame Christianity-for either it’s own Utopianism, or

Fair enough. What would be the sort of society you want us to return to and how would you adapt it to the modern world?

 

[LordsFire]

I'm a Conservative, and I am well aware that civilization goes in more than one direction.

And healthier, stable, more lawful, less corrupt societies are the exception, not the norm.

It takes active, concerted effort to maintain a healthy society, because there will always be active effort to tear it down, and simple entropy working on top of that. As the saying goes, freedom isn't free.

Any element of 'progress,' either real progress or the drek that progressives try to push, can be turned back, and it is not necessarily remotely true that it can be turned back as easily as it was turned forward.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Fair enough. What would be the sort of society you want us to return to and how would you adapt it to the modern world?

To be honest I do think some of the far right’s arguments about this coming as far as Christianity have merit. We as Christians believe in a triumphant end of history too. Just not a secularized one.

(I mean that‘s why some of them consider Christianity to be bad-basically a Jewish mental chain on the Aryan Race-like legit I have actually read LARPing “Apollonians” who believe that the entirety of western history and culture as far back as Greece and the Bible was basically Jewish psychological conquest-I kid you not).

The absurdity of that sort of thinking aside, it makes me ask if perhaps our whole terminology might need to be jettisoned.

If we believe that the end of history will be triumphant, then are we not “progressives”?

I would say no-because we do not believe humanity as such will improve, we won’t climb the ladder to heaven, heaven will come down from the clouds for us.

I would argue-for Christians at least that is what separates us from “Progressives” in the secular sense.

So perhaps we shouldn‘t ask that question. Perhaps we should merely pray for the world to come.

While being in the world but not of it. That’s all well and nice-but the impulse to “plant our trees” will never go away.

So we are left to ask how.

I would say, firstly we must not submit to the paradigm Bacle has submitted to.

We should build a society that overcomes liberalism, and seeks to endure.

Until the Eschaton that is.

How do we do that? Well...we have two thousand years of people asking that question.

 

[almostinsane]

To be honest I do think some of the far right’s arguments about this coming as far as Christianity have merit. We as Christians believe in a triumphant end of history too. Just not a secularized one.

(I mean that‘s why some of them consider Christianity to be bad-basically a Jewish mental chain on the Aryan Race-like legit I have actually read LARPing “Apollonians” who believe that the entirety of western history and culture as far back as Greece and the Bible was basically Jewish psychological conquest-I kid you not).

The absurdity of that sort of thinking aside, it makes me ask if perhaps our whole terminology might need to be jettisoned.

If we believe that the end of history will be triumphant, then are we not “progressives”?

I would say no-because we do not believe humanity as such will improve, we won’t climb the ladder to heaven, heaven will come down from the clouds for us.

I would argue-for Christians at least that is what separates us from “Progressives” in the secular sense.

So perhaps we shouldn‘t ask that question. Perhaps we should merely pray for the world to come.

While being in the world but not of it. That’s all well and nice-but the impulse to “plant our trees” will never go away.

So we are left to ask how.

I would say, firstly we must not submit to the paradigm Bacle has submitted to.

We should build a society that overcomes liberalism, and seeks to endure.

Until the Eschaton that is.

How do we do that? Well...we have two thousand years of people asking that question.

I would question the notion of jettisoning liberalism. As a conservative, I have been a 19th century style liberal for the longest time. I still value free speech, freedom of religion, association, etc., and capitalism as the greatest building blocks for civilization.

I would just argue that we cannot trust big monopolies to always act in accordance with the nation's or people's interest (see Big Tech's censorship of speech on one hand and kowtowing to China on the other hand). And I would argue further that the American experiment cannot endure without morality. Per John Addams:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any others."

This cannot be accomplished through heavy-handed moral policing, but should be accomplished by Christians and conservatives at the grassroots level (i.e. persuasion over force) while the government acknowledges objective principles that it once did (i.e marriage is the most important building block of society, prostitution should be tolerated but looked down upon, etc.).

I would not dismantle the liberal/conservative balance that made America great. I would restore it by doing away with the rot of socialism and hedonism.

 

[LordsFire]

I would question the notion of jettisoning liberalism. As a conservative, I have been a 19th century style liberal for the longest time. I still value free speech, freedom of religion, association, etc., and capitalism as the greatest building blocks for civilization.

I would just argue that we cannot trust big monopolies to always act in accordance with the nation's or people's interest (see Big Tech's censorship of speech on one hand and kowtowing to China on the other hand). And I would argue further that the American experiment cannot endure without morality. Per John Addams:



This cannot be accomplished through heavy-handed moral policing, but should be accomplished by Christians and conservatives at the grassroots level (i.e. persuasion over force) while the government acknowledges objective principles that it once did (i.e marriage is the most important building block of society, prostitution should be tolerated but looked down upon, etc.).

I would not dismantle the liberal/conservative balance that made America great. I would restore it by doing away with the rot of socialism and hedonism.

All except for the last bit, I agree pretty strongly on. As to the last bit...

Change where the 'liberal/conservative' balance is. When the liberal is arguing for bodily autonomy ala recreational drug use as a legal matter, and the conservative is arguing about the deleterious social effects thereof, you can have a reasonably healthy society.

When the liberal is arguing about how if you don't approve of your children being fed hormones for the opposite gender you're committing child abuse, and the conservative is trying to explain that sexualizing children is bad, your society is not in a healthy place.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I would question the notion of jettisoning liberalism. As a conservative, I have been a 19th century style liberal for the longest time. I still value free speech, freedom of religion, association, etc., and capitalism as the greatest building blocks for civilization.

I would just argue that we cannot trust big monopolies to always act in accordance with the nation's or people's interest (see Big Tech's censorship of speech on one hand and kowtowing to China on the other hand). And I would argue further that the American experiment cannot endure without morality. Per John Addams:



This cannot be accomplished through heavy-handed moral policing, but should be accomplished by Christians and conservatives at the grassroots level (i.e. persuasion over force) while the government acknowledges objective principles that it once did (i.e marriage is the most important building block of society, prostitution should be tolerated but looked down upon, etc.).

I would not dismantle the liberal/conservative balance that made America great. I would restore it by doing away with the rot of socialism and hedonism.

Ah but many a reactionary would say liberalism was the ground from which socialist and hedonism sprung up from.

While that’s obviously debatable, you can‘t have Marx without Adam Smith.