Britain Why Conservatives conserve nothing

[Deleted member 88]

No. There is discontent, just look at the rioting in the streets and all the reactionaries. Its just leftism silences people and deplatforms them.

Eh there are plenty of leftists rioting in the streets? Where have you been all summer? Just because the left holds institutional power, in fact because it does, the discontented on the street are given far more leeway than they would be otherwise.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Eh there are plenty of leftists rioting in the streets? Where have you been all summer? Just because the left holds institutional power, in fact because it does, the discontented on the street are given far more leeway than they would be otherwise.

You misunderstood me. You think the average leftist likes Pelosi or the Democratic party? They likely hate them too. Thats my point. Discontent has not gone down with leftism ruling. They didn't push the Bernie or they suck the cock of the corporations when the average lefty wants to burn the corporation despite having an Apple smartphone.

Leftwingmaleadvocates subreddit exists cause some left leaning men are not self hating cucks and don't like how feminism seeks to demean and destroy men.

Yet, more discontent. Discontent has always existed. It has nothing to do with Conservatism.

 

[Deleted member 88]

You misunderstood me. You think the average leftist likes Pelosi or the Democratic party? They likely hate them too. Thats my point. Discontent has not gone down with leftism ruling. They didn't push the Bernie or they suck the cock of the corporations when the average lefty wants to burn the corporation despite having an Apple smartphone.

Leftwingmaleadvocates subreddit exists cause some left leaning men are not self hating cucks and don't like how feminism seeks to demean and destroy men.

Yet, more discontent. Discontent has always existed. It has nothing to do with Conservatism.

Like clockwork, you again fundamentally misunderstand my point.

 

[Bacle]

Eh there is one fundamental aspect of humanity that conservatism has either failed to grasp or at the very least doesn't have an answer for and yet it's plagued them in the form of revolutions and new age philosophies. that aspect is the following. "If I'm not content I will make others crumble before."



Conservatism embraces that which makes us people, but what if someone for whatever reason whether it be greed, insecurity or maybe legit opression doesin't like the system. maybe they don't benifit or at least can't see the benifit, then what do you do. Look at the trans humanist philosophy, cyborgization and genetic alteration, typically these things don't come from the fundamental love of hummanity, or human nature it comes from a since of "hummanity sucks how do we change it at a fudamental level." What do you do about that when ever such ideology can be spread without fighting a shot? You can't without essentially defeating yourself and admitting that the only thing that matters is winning or losing. We had an answer to this for a while, but it either gets neglected or it's not enough for some people. It's called M.A.D and it used to be enforced by the 2nd amendment. When both sides are made fully aware that violence lead to assured death, both sides are forced to act like grownups, talk things out and FIX them. But again the 2nd ammendment has been fully neglected.

My observation has been there are basically two ways traditional conservatives have historically dealt with this issue, neither of which has been particularly successful.

1) They just say "Well Jesus was oppressed, Christians are always going to be oppressed (even when they are in control), the world is sinful anyway because of Original Sin, so just pray for deliverance while accepting your shit situtation."

This was used to keep serfs, slaves, and peasants from revolting, while 'divine right of kings' allowed the upper classes to use Christianity to bootstrap their own power, often while crushing 'pagan' or 'heretic' sects/groups. Which is why it no longer has very much moral power in the eyes of many, and Enlightenment/classical liberal thinking has by enlarge abandoned trying to use Christianity religion as part of it's social tool kit. When things like the All Hallowed Eve earthquake in Lisbon back during 1755 kills 80k on one the holy days, and was followed by a tsunami that compounded the damage, is really makes people not see religion as anything worth leaning on for guidance. It was that event that inspired Voltaire, and those who came after, to revolt against religious 'moral authority'.

2) They claim "If you have a problem with the system we support, it's probably you that is wrong, for [X reason]. Repent, pray, and maybe the system will find a place for you or you will come to accept the system."

Never mind that Christianity has been used to excuse some pretty heinous shit, the system was often full of graft, corruption, and 'indulgences', along with things like the 'Catholic Preist touching boys scandal', and stealing/rebranding 'pagan' holidays as their own. Liberalism, and socialism, don't try to claim a 'divine mandate' as it's justification, and that is no small thing. A material world justification for their aims, instead of harping on about Original Sin, damnation, and 'Judgement Day', reach ears that no longer trust religious authorities.

Traditional conservatives do not have good answers for these critiques and problems, because their go to answers only preach to the already converted. Those answers do little to address how these issues look to the younger generations who find religion to just be another set of self-interest, self-justifying authoritarians who have historically been far less righteous than the person they claim as their savior.

Ghandi once said something along the lines of "I love your Christ/his messasge, but not Christianity, because so many Christians are so unlike their Christ." Too many try to convert others via the sword, hellfire sermons, or appeals to ignoring the harm Jesus's followers have perpetrated. Too few go the route of showing Jesus's message in the actions, instead of simply preaching his words and those of the...lets be blunt, most of the Bible is fanfiction or a 'dramatic recitation/retelling of historical events', at best. Christianity does not have a monopoly on righteousness, not in the current time at least, which is why relying on appeals to it to sway people's politics is not a dependable avenue.

I say all this as a person who believes Jesus was part of the divine and has a very worth while message, but does not see the 'Christianity' that resulted from his sacrifice as something Jesus probably would want to be a part of. Nor do I believe that people of other religions are cut off from the divine either, simply because they look to other figures besides Christ.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Like clockwork, you again fundamentally misunderstand my point.

We are discussing about discontent and it existing within Conservative and Leftism structures. You said that leftism uses discontent to power itself is kinda true but that does not mean that there is no discontent against leftism itself and leftism does what every empire has done. Try and destroy said discontent. Its why you had bernie bots speak of camps to put people that don't agree with them in.

 

[Fleiur]

My observation has been there are basically two ways traditional conservatives have historically dealt with this issue, neither of which has been particularly successful.

1) They just say "Well Jesus was oppressed, Christians are always going to be oppressed (even when they are in control), the world is sinful anyway because of Original Sin, so just pray for deliverance while accepting your shit situtation."

This was used to keep serfs, slaves, and peasants from revolting, while 'divine right of kings' allowed the upper classes to use Christianity to bootstrap their own power, often while crushing 'pagan' or 'heretic' sects/groups. Which is why it no longer has very much moral power in the eyes of many, and Enlightenment/classical liberal thinking has by enlarge abandoned trying to use Christianity religion as part of it's social tool kit. When things like the All Hallowed Eve earthquake in Lisbon back during 1755 kills 80k on one the holy days, and was followed by a tsunami that compounded the damage, is really makes people not see religion as anything worth leaning on for guidance. It was that event that inspired Voltaire, and those who came after, to revolt against religious 'moral authority'.

2) They claim "If you have a problem with the system we support, it's probably you that is wrong, for [X reason]. Repent, pray, and maybe the system will find a place for you or you will come to accept the system."

Never mind that Christianity has been used to excuse some pretty heinous shit, the system was often full of graft, corruption, and 'indulgences', along with things like the 'Catholic Preist touching boys scandal', and stealing/rebranding 'pagan' holidays as their own. Liberalism, and socialism, don't try to claim a 'divine mandate' as it's justification, and that is no small thing. A material world justification for their aims, instead of harping on about Original Sin, damnation, and 'Judgement Day', reach ears that no longer trust religious authorities.

Traditional conservatives do not have good answers for these critiques and problems, because their go to answers only preach to the already converted. Those answers do little to address how these issues look to the younger generations who find religion to just be another set of self-interest, self-justifying authoritarians who have historically been far less righteous than the person they claim as their savior.

Ghandi once said something along the lines of "I love your Christ/his messasge, but not Christianity, because so many Christians are so unlike their Christ." Too many try to convert others via the sword, hellfire sermons, or appeals to ignoring the harm Jesus's followers have perpetrated. Too few go the route of showing Jesus's message in the actions, instead of simply preaching his words and those of the...lets be blunt, most of the Bible is fanfiction or a 'dramatic recitation/retelling of historical events', at best. Christianity does not have a monopoly on righteousness, not in the current time at least, which is why relying on appeals to it to sway people's politics is not a dependable avenue.

I say all this as a person who believes Jesus was part of the divine and has a very worth while message, but does not see the 'Christianity' that resulted from his sacrifice as something Jesus probably would want to be a part of. Nor do I believe that people of other religions are cut off from the divine either, simply because they look to other figures besides Christ.

As I said,

Yet, every culture have had similar mores and taboos. Almost every culture developed monogamy as the norm, looked down on drunkenness as a vice, and saw children and the family as important. Those that didn't have these sort of mores failed.

Being left alone is all well and good when society believes that property and individual freedom are untouchable. That comes from objective morality. Once you get subjective morality, you get Antifa twisting the meaning of words to make you the bad guy while they burn your house and take your stuff.

Christianity, meanwhile, teaches that we live in a free world and evil exists alongside free will. Christianity may have been used to keep lower classes in line, but it also had a large role in the abolition of slavery and the development of Protestant industriousness, for example. Christianity is an exceptional religion.

The actions of bad Christians do not indict all Christians. Jesus was peaceful. Muhammad was a pedophile and a terrorist. People and cultures who not follow objective morality pay the price.

 

[Bacle]

As I said,


Christianity, meanwhile, teaches that we live in a free world and evil exists alongside free will. Christianity may have been used to keep lower classes in line, but it also had a large role in the abolition of slavery and the development of Protestant industriousness, for example. Christianity is an exceptional religion.

The actions of bad Christians do not indict all Christians. Jesus was peaceful. Muhammad was a pedophile and a terrorist. People and cultures who not follow objective morality pay the price.

Again, this is an argument that works when preaching to the already converted; it will not convince many sceptics, not on its own.

And religion is more than just Judism, Christianity, and Islam.

Buhdism, Shintoism, the Druid faith, Sikhism, even native American sects can offer different answers and other modes of looking at the world.

Those religions do not rely on the concept of Original Sin to claim we live in a 'fallen world'. I really don't think you get how the concept of Original Sin has allowed the Far-Left to build up it's 'guilt by skin color' ideology by harnessing the same type of rhetoric.

 

[Fleiur]

Again, this is an argument that works when preaching to the already converted; it will not convince many sceptics, not on its own.

And religion is more than just Judism, Christianity, and Islam.

Buhdism, Shintoism, the Druid faith, Sikhism, even native American sects can offer different answers and other modes of looking at the world.

Those religions do not rely on the concept of Original Sin to claim we live in a 'fallen world'. I really don't think you get how the concept of Original Sin has allowed the Far-Left to build up it's 'guilt by skin color' ideology by harnessing the same type of rhetoric.

I think you can get the concept of an imperfect world and flawed humanity across very easily.

You only need to establish that there is an object standard, an objective truth and point out examples where human nature falls way short of that standard. Racial original sin falls apart when you point out that humans are universally bastards and reject collectivism. It's only sustained by their belief that crime happens because the criminal has no free will.

 

[Bacle]

I think you can get the concept of an imperfect world and flawed humanity across very easily.

Except Original Sin doesn't do that, it created the concept of 'collective guilt', not 'we live in a flawed world', in the eyes of the doubtful and sceptical.

You only need to establish that there is an object standard, an objective truth and point out examples where human nature falls way short of that standard. Racial original sin falls apart when you point out that humans are universally bastards and reject collectivism. It's only sustained by their belief that crime happens because the criminal has no free will.

'Objective Standard' and 'Objective Truth' are not something Christianity has a monopoly on, nor is it something that any religion has exclusive claim to.

The closest we get to 'Objective Truth' and 'Objective Standards' in this world, that actually are accepted across faiths and sects, are physics and Newtonian Laws of Gravity.

You do not seem to be able to look at things from the perspective of non-Christians, or non-theists, as having any legitimacy, which is why trad cons tend to only be able to preach to the choir, not convert the doubtful. Secular Liberalism and it's ideals can reach ears that do not trust religion, and that is why trad cons are not the ones pulling moderates, centrists, and classical liberals over to the Right.

 

[Fleiur]

Except Original Sin doesn't do that, it created the concept of 'collective guilt', not 'we live in a flawed world', in the eyes of the doubtful and sceptical.
'Objective Standard' and 'Objective Truth' are not something Christianity has a monopoly on, nor is it something that any religion has exclusive claim to.

The closest we get to 'Objective Truth' and 'Objective Standards' in this world, that actually are accepted across faiths and sects, are physics and Newtonian Laws of Gravity.

I believe the contrary was already pointed out to you by LordsFire:

Mongol Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Penalties were also decreed for rape and to some extent for murder. Any resistance to Mongol rule was met with massive collective punishment. "

Spartan Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"A Spartan citizen in good standing was one who maintained his fighting skills, showed bravery in battle, ensured that his farms were productive, was married and had healthy children. Spartan women were the only Greek women to hold property rights on their own, and were required to practice sports before marriage. "

Property rights means that theft is illegal. You know, for people who are considered people, not property themselves, which is something the Spartans had a notable problem with. I'm also amused that, even though I didn't pose my question about monogamy, you saw fit to call it out in particular.


So yes, your two examples don't seem to be panning out here. Just because they had other laws and mores which clash with the universal sufferage Christianity has pushed forward in the modern era, doesn't mean that murder, theft, or rape were considered normal or acceptable, so long as the target wasn't part of an 'other' group who didn't count as 'people.'

Care to try for some other examples? I'm genuinely curious.

You do not seem to be able to look at things from the perspective of non-Christians, or non-theists, as having any legitimacy, which is why trad cons tend to only be able to preach to the choir, not convert the doubtful. Secular Liberalism and it's ideals can reach ears that do not trust religion, and that is why trad cons are not the ones pulling moderates, centrists, and classical liberals over to the Right.

You do not seem to think that trad cons can have a discussion with other people unless they give up their viewpoint. Yet, I'm sure you'll believe that a classical liberal and a communist can debate about private property.

 

[Bacle]

You do not seem to think that trad cons can have a discussion with other people unless they give up their viewpoint. Yet, I'm sure you'll believe that a classical liberal and a communist can debate about private property.

I think trad cons need to let classical liberals take the lead on the Right, because they can actually pull in the center and keep the Far-Left from destroying everything both trad cons and classical liberals value.

The simple fact you are not willing to engage my cirtiques of Original Sin, and how it lead to the 'collective guilt' mindset now pushed by BLM and Antifa shows you are not willing to take an objective look at why trad cons have failed to keep social power or why classical liberals are having more success fighting the Far-Left then trad cons.

Trad cons are simply not equipped to fight the battle that now faces the Right.

 

[Marduk]

Except Original Sin doesn't do that, it created the concept of 'collective guilt'

Being such a secularist and big fan of science you really should reexamine that statement, you might find the idea of collective guilt being much older and more common than that.

Even if you are right that this specific use case was probably pillaged by the marxists from the most common and well known to them judeochristian cultures, which they inhabit. Wouldn't even be the first time they rob these for ideas - see: liberation theology.

Secular Liberalism and it's ideals can reach ears that do not trust religion

You are putting essentially 3 groups into one bag.
-people who do not trust a specific kind of religion (traditional christian kind of it usually)
-people who do not trust religion in the conventional sense (social organisation with priests, hierarchy, rituals, gods, openly making supernatural claims), but are fine with non-theistic "it's totally not a religion" movements that functionally do everything a religion does regardless of what they say about conventional religions
-people who do not trust religion because they do not believe in the supernatural

 

[Bacle]

Being such a secularist and big fan of science you really should reexamine that statement, you might find the idea of collective guilt being much older and more common than that.

Even if you are right that this specific use case was probably pillaged by the marxists from the most common and well known to them judeochristian cultures, which they inhabit. Wouldn't even be the first time they rob these for ideas - see: liberation theology.

Yes, Marxists definitely stole it from Judaeo-Christian philosophy, just as Judaeo-Christian philosophy and groups stole holidays and concepts from 'pagan' groups to try and get converts.

I am however not aware of a pre-Judaeo-Christain group with Original Sin built into it's foundational beliefs. I know Zoroastrianism had a concept of Hell, but not of Original Sin, and it's about the only major pre-Judaeo-Christian belief structure that had anything close. The Roman, Greek, and Egyptian pantheons sure didn't.

You are putting essentially 3 groups into one bag.
-people who do not trust a specific kind of religion (traditional christian kind of it usually)
-people who do not trust religion in the conventional sense (social organisation with priests, hierarchy, rituals, gods, openly making supernatural claims), but are fine with non-theistic "it's totally not a religion" movements that functionally do everything a religion does regardless of what they say about conventional religions
-people who do not trust religion because they do not believe in the supernatural

That is a fair point, there are different reasons people do not trust religious morality or philosophies as the guide for their lives.

However, the arguments trad cons make still only really attempt to preach to the choir, which is why they are less useful fighting the Far-Left compared to secular philosophies.

 

[Marduk]

Yes, Marxists definitely stole it from Judaeo-Christian philosophy, just as Judaeo-Christian philosophy and groups stole holidays and concepts from 'pagan' groups to try and get converts.

I meant the idea of holding a whole group responsible for actions of some of its members in general, which may seem like something unusual for a modern western liberal, but for other, especially primitive, tribal civilizations, its a perfectly common, normal and mundane one.
For example, absolutely not Judeo-Christian ancient China:

Nine familial exterminations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Strict individualism in such regard is in fact something most associated with western culture.

I am however not aware of a pre-Judaeo-Christain group with Original Sin built into it's foundational beliefs. I know Zoroastrianism had a concept of Hell, but not of Original Sin, and it's about the only major pre-Judaeo-Christian belief structure that had anything close. The Roman, Greek, and Egyptian pantheons sure didn't.
That is a fair point, there are different reasons people do not trust religious morality or philosophies as the guide for their lives.

Original Sin, specifically, no, if only because the very concept of "sin" as understood in western culture is based on the Judeo-Christian understanding of offenses against the divine order.

However, once we go beyond the very specific definition, i can think of something very similar in a non Judeo-Christian religion - the caste of Dalits in Hinduist India, considered the lowest of the low, for being born into that caste is believed to be punishment for misbehavior in previous lives.

However, the arguments trad cons make still only really attempt to preach to the choir, which is why they are less useful fighting the Far-Left compared to secular philosophies.

Depends which, and which specific arguments.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

I meant the idea of holding a whole group responsible for actions of some of its members in general, which may seem like something unusual for a modern western liberal, but for other, especially primitive, tribal civilizations, its a perfectly common, normal and mundane one.
For example, absolutely not Judeo-Christian ancient China:

Nine familial exterminations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Strict individualism in such regard is in fact something most associated with western culture.

Original Sin, specifically, no, if only because the very concept of "sin" as understood in western culture is based on the Judeo-Christian understanding of offenses against the divine order.

However, once we go beyond the very specific definition, i can think of something very similar in a non Judeo-Christian religion - the caste of Dalits in Hinduist India, considered the lowest of the low, for being born into that caste is believed to be punishment for misbehavior in previous lives.

Depends which, and which specific arguments.

The Mongols sometimes wipe out entire countries or cities just cause a messenger of their's was killed. Seems similar to collective guilt too otherwise, just wipe out the leadership caste? But then again the mongols loved making people terrified of them so that their conquests were easier.

 

[Fleiur]

I think trad cons need to let classical liberals take the lead on the Right, because they can actually pull in the center and keep the Far-Left from destroying everything both trad cons and classical liberals value.

The simple fact you are not willing to engage my cirtiques of Original Sin, and how it lead to the 'collective guilt' mindset now pushed by BLM and Antifa shows you are not willing to take an objective look at why trad cons have failed to keep social power or why classical liberals are having more success fighting the Far-Left then trad cons.

Trad cons are simply not equipped to fight the battle that now faces the Right.

I already addressed it to you, Bacle. To reiterate, Original Sin just recognizes human nature. Everyone is corrupted. Because all sinned. And must struggle to choose good. That is why we have free will. It's an equalizing concept. Everyone is human.

Like I said to you, when you take out objective morality, you will get Antifa and yeah BLM. Because they twist it to their subjective morals. Only some groups are inherently sinful. Others are as pure as snow. It's okay to burn your house. It's okay to burn your business and take your stuff.

 

[Bacle]

I already addressed it to you, Bacle. To reiterate, Original Sin just recognizes human nature. Everyone is corrupted. Because all sinned. And must struggle to choose good. That is why we have free will. It's an equalizing concept. Everyone is human.

Like I said to you, when you take out objective morality, you will get Antifa and yeah BLM. Because they twist it to their subjective morals. Only some groups are inherently sinful. Others are as pure as snow. It's okay to burn your house. It's okay to burn your business and take your stuff.

I am not going to argue this anymore with you.

You are unwilling to look at things from an secular perspective, nor accept that 'objective' anything is not the sole preview of any religion or ideology.

This is why trad cons have been marginalized in politics, because they keep making the same mistake of thinking arguments that work when preaching to the choir suffice to pull moderates and centrists in. Classical liberalism can pull them in, because it does not attempt to use religion or religious ideology to makes its arguments.

 

[Prince Ire]

I think trad cons need to let classical liberals take the lead on the Right, because they can actually pull in the center and keep the Far-Left from destroying everything both trad cons and classical liberals value.

The simple fact you are not willing to engage my cirtiques of Original Sin, and how it lead to the 'collective guilt' mindset now pushed by BLM and Antifa shows you are not willing to take an objective look at why trad cons have failed to keep social power or why classical liberals are having more success fighting the Far-Left then trad cons.

Trad cons are simply not equipped to fight the battle that now faces the Right.

Classical liberals have been running the right for the entire history of the US. They have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of accomplishing anything other than strengthening corporations, destroying families, and generally selling out anything and everything for a few extra coins in their pockets. Traditional conservatives have failed to keep power because they never had that much power in the US to begin with and what they did have they were browbeaten by classical liberals into giving up, which was than seized by the progressives.

Also, collective guilt is a nigh universal concept across human cultures.

 

[Fleiur]

nor accept that 'objective' anything is not the sole preview of any religion or ideology.

I just don't get how you can justify that what Antifa and BLM is doing are wrong without objective morality. How?

This is why trad cons have been marginalized in politics, because they keep making the same mistake of thinking arguments that work when preaching to the choir suffice to pull moderates and centrists in. Classical liberalism can pull them in, because it does not attempt to use religion or religious ideology to makes its arguments.

I asked you this in the previous post:

Classical liberalism rises and falls and falls with objective values. Those values are individual liberty and right to property.

Once the narrative is "speech is violence" and "owning property" is violence, what do you do?

You said "Move to Mars". Why couldn't you give details about it?

 

[Marduk]

I am not going to argue this anymore with you.

You are unwilling to look at things from an secular perspective, nor accept that 'objective' anything is not the sole preview of any religion or ideology.

This is why trad cons have been marginalized in politics, because they keep making the same mistake of thinking arguments that work when preaching to the choir suffice to pull moderates and centrists in. Classical liberalism can pull them in, because it does not attempt to use religion or religious ideology to makes its arguments.

Let me explain this in the rationalistic manner you expect.

Systems of governance and ideologies are not alternatives to each other. A functional society needs one of each. Like you were taught in medieval history, there was the reign of men (monarchy) and a reign of souls (the church). Some societies don't even separate these roles and have a total, unitary one (like islamic theocracies). Classical liberalism is an example of the former. What you call "trad cons", tradition, conservatism, usually including variations of Christianity, represent an example of the latter. A means, and an end. What you ask for is a means without an end. A tool without an owner. A car without a driver. But everyone knows what happens with such. Nature abhors a vacuum. Someone will pick up the unowned tool. Someone will take the abandoned car for a joyride. Who knows, maybye you will like the next owner's intent for this system, who knows who it will be. But as it seems, you don't, for the pretender to being the cause leading this system is the rising cult of marxist progress.

Like it or not, even without believing into "tradcon" ideas, you can observe that a society that is lead by them can be quite functional. Besides, it was the society that created "classical liberalism" and all the boons you associate with it rightfully and not in the first place.
So, like it or not, a society, to be stable and functional, needs not only a system of governance, but also an ideology - also referred to as a reign of souls, a grand narrative, a leading idea, a cause for the means to be used and justified by. Every historical society you can point to had one, horrible or not so much, but it had one. What makes you think such a vacuum can exist in long term, especially when no one cares for maintaining it by force of arms against all the highly motivated champions of all the "grand narratives" who would be eager to claim the powerful liberal societies and their polities as their "means"?

Its just pure wishful thinking to hope such a void will just continue to be, something you at least should try to avoid. Pick a grand narrative, try to make a deal with one, make one, whatever, but that void is unsustainable and someone eventually will fill it. Make sure its a narrative and community you like, or failing that, at least can tolerate.