Britain Why Conservatives conserve nothing

[Abhishekm]

Well bit late to the discussion. But Buddhism has the whole Life is Suffering thing. Which is pretty close to Original Sin in my opinion. The humanity is flawed but it doesn't have to stay that way idea. Which is pretty endearing to me. All in all most have same principle of giving something else to hope for or aspire to. Hinduism has Karma and Enlightenment too. Compared to the more general see powerful thing, explain powerful thing, give powerful thing veneration in hope of rewards thing other simpler ones can have.

A difference of offering a possible answer to believe or aspire to. Versus a avenue to more gibs as it were.

One is potentially healthier dependent on the message involved and the execution. The other is more easily exploitable and can be a more slippery slope.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

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.

Sadly I think it's more of they assume everyone follows their logic and worldview and don't know how to react when someone has a different world view, typically resorting to either conspiracy theory or the supernatural "it's the heathen" says the Jew "It's the devil." says the christian "It's the jew" says the white supremacist (Real ones mind you not the fake ones SJWs hollar about) and rather have an answer for the gun, they typical just freeze in shock and horror as they question their faith and worldview. In short everybody thinks they are invincible and have the heavens on their side....until they are lying face down in a pool of their own blood.

Rome was probably the closest to having an answer to this By nationalizing blood sports and essentially manipulating and controlling their peoples aggression. Feel like the world is unjust? Take your anger out on the blue team. Not enough bread today? let the red team feel your malace.

 

[Doomsought]

Well bit late to the discussion. But Buddhism has the whole Life is Suffering thing. Which is pretty close to Original Sin in my opinion. The humanity is flawed but it doesn't have to stay that way idea. Which is pretty endearing to me. All in all most have same principle of giving something else to hope for or aspire to.

The Heart of the issue, I think, is not the principle that people are flawed but rather the idea that the flaw can only be fixed by a miracle. This means that to make society work you need to design your institutions to work around human flaws.

However if you have the hubris to believe you have the solution to the flaws of humanity, then you will design your institutions with the assumption that you will have perfect humans to run them.

That is the problem of the left, as long as they believe they can fix humanity then utopia will always be one more genocide away.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

The Heart of the issue, I think, is not the principle that people are flawed but rather the idea that the flaw can only be fixed by a miracle. This means that to make society work you need to design your institutions to work around human flaws.

However if you have the hubris to believe you have the solution to the flaws of humanity, then you will design your institutions with the assumption that you will have perfect humans to run them.

That is the problem of the left, as long as they believe they can fix humanity then utopia will always be one more genocide away.

I think part of the problem is that most people only know a VERY abridged version of politics, science, economics, history, philosophy, psychology and even regarding their so-called “enemies” in-regards to politics

One justification for communism I’ve heard is that “Humans are inherently communist, because humans are social animals”

Nevermind that even at our most primitive states we were prone to violence and hierarchies and greediness and lust

Our bodies are still those of our cavemen ancestors

The 7+1 Deadly Sins are the result of our instincts provides by evolution REALLY not being good to deal with society but were for disgusting animals

1. Pride was for leadership or asserting dominance
2. Greed was for constantly hoarding items that would possibly be useful and possibly using it for bargaining
3. Lust was for encouraging reproduction because a species was always in danger and needed new kids to do stuff and things like faithfulness and monogamy was something that felt like going against that subconscious goal
4. Envy was for making men and women feel threatened by the presence of others who may steal mates and also had what they wanted/needed to survive
5. Gluttony was because our ancestors would never truly know when their next meal was and needed that energency fat and may lose their current meal all of a sudden
6. Wrath was for combat and survival, you’d hit harder if you were angry and ignore your wounds
7. Sloth was because you’d need as much rest as possible and humans were endurance predators and our bodies weren’t meant to push themselves so hard and constantly
8. Apathy was because trying to care about everyone or everything could leave a guy a nervous wreck and there wasn’t always room for mercy in the middle of battle nor could you spend too much time grieving for losses

Compassion and Love are also instincts we got, but even they have to deal with the rest

Try to make people Communist and you’ll end up with guys ontop who may let all 7+1 sins run rampant in their bodies or get in conflict with the latter as being well-intentioned isn’t so useful if you’re NOT smart and able to deal with so much power and responsibility

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

One justification for communism I’ve heard is that “Humans are inherently communist, because humans are social animals”

research seems to indicate that human nature allows for 2 to maybe 5 fronds MAX. Considering how even at our most primitive we were still a species of THOUSANDS, that kind of tells me we are the opposite of social creatures. (at least from a political spectrum like communism or heck even imperialism.)

 

[CarlManvers2019]

research seems to indicate that human nature allows for 2 to maybe 5 fronds MAX. Considering how even at our most primitive we were still a species of THOUSANDS, that kind of tells me we are the opposite of social creatures. (at least from a political spectrum like xommunism ir heck even imperialism.)

Being friends or caring for them, requires I think a level of intimacy and having been around one another

Otherwise it’s hard to love a stranger or someone who’s not your neighbor or everyday-talking-buddy

Globalism and Communism which on principle kind of deny love of one’s nation, unless you’re a POC, in favor of being a “Citizen of The World” is an extreme denial of whatever level of unity one has for something without an identity to begin with

I expect Globalism to eventually turn to Nationalism as soon as you get to the galactic stage

 

[Doomsought]

research seems to indicate that human nature allows for 2 to maybe 5 fronds MAX.

Its around a hundred for camaraderie. That is why the size of a platoon is what it is.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Its around a hundred for camaraderie. That is why the size of a platoon is what it is.

even then your talking a 100 out of multi 1000s

 

[CarlManvers2019]

even then your talking a 100 out of multi 1000s

I think there’s a reason why things like Nationalism and Religion are a sort of unifying factor, though Globalism has the problem in that by comparison it’s got little to no shared values or origin or an identity to begin with and actually kinda rejects them all

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Mapping anything as complex and idiosyncratic as political ideology onto only two options is so misleading as to be essentially worthless. Trying to generalize political ideology from one nation to other nations tends to be even stupider.

The Tory's in the UK are conservative in that they have had the same driving principals for the past hundred years; change as little as possible from yesterday as is necessary to retain power and retain control of the government in the hands of the correct people.

The GOP in the US, on the other hand, spent the 80's, 90's, and 00's as the umbrella organization for several distinct groups each with their own points of concern.
-The religious right demanded the party be anti-abortion and not be anti-religion; so long as the GOP met that criteria and the Democrats didn't (and indeed steadily moved further and further to being pro-abortion and anti-religion) the GOP had that voting block sewn up.
-The Gun Rights block demanded that the party not be anti-gun (preferably pro-gun but they would settle for gun rights not becoming more restrictive) and so long as the GOP was aligned on this point (and especially with the Democrats becoming progressively more and more anti-gun), this group was sewn up for the GOP pretty much regardless of the rest of the platform.
-The corporate class demanded that the party be pro free-trade and anti-tax; so long as they saw the GOP as better for their bottom line, they remained loyal.
-The National Security group demanded that the party agree with them on foreign policy & security and otherwise didn't give a damn.

What the GOP was up through W was a collection of disparate and wildly divergent single issue (or class of issue) voters whose issue(s) of concern didn't contradict one another. It was never really a party for conserving things except in so far as the issues that they cared about were already the status quo (NatSec for example).

The Democrats got everyone who didn't align with the GOP and this left them with trying to cobble together a platform that could please enough of those divergent (and mutually contradictory) groups to get the turnout needed to win elections.

What really changed things was a combination of the Great Recession, the Silicon Revolution, and Obama's rhetoric.

The Great Recession was incredibly damaging to large sub-sectors of both parties and, in the case of the GOP, it very much created a break between the Corporate group and pretty much everyone else. In the case of the Democrats, it broke blue collar/working class loyalty to the party as they saw the "bosses" bailed out under their President while they were left destitute.

The silicon microchip is the most transformative piece of human innovation since fire or agriculture. Those of us alive today don't really think about it, but within the past fifty years every single facet of human existence has been fundamentally transformed by the microchip and thus staggeringly huge fortunes have been available. The returns on capital have been utterly ahistorical; with obvious consequences on wealth and wealth disparity. More important, the 2010's saw the first generation truly growing up in the internet age become politically aware and active.

Obama ran on a platform of Change. He promised transformation; the issue is that he was a Democrat and a Democrat becomes President by using personal charisma to paper over the policy contradictions needed to satisfy the Democrat voting base. So Obama won and in 8 years in office he failed to deliver on that promise of change to the various parts of the Democrat party. Note that he was making those promises to young voters and groups that saw themselves (rightly or wrongly) as traditionally marginalized. Obama did the most dangerous of things, he gave them Hope and then failed to deliver.

Now combine all of those issues.

That was the mess that Trump rode the golden escalator into. The traditional working class had seen themselves shafted by Obama and were ripe for the GOP to poach; at the cost of the more globalized part of the Corporate class. Of course, pleasing those new converts required being anti-globalist and that was always going to see the National Security block split in half with the half that was pro global intervention kicked to the curb.

Now who were the anti-abortion and pro-gun voters in the Democrat party before all of this? The working class voting bloc that just jumped ship to Trump.

So the Democrats were left more reliant on the progressives that Obama had given hope to and failed while having simultaneously lost the largest countervailing force in their party. This inevitably drove them further left which only exacerbated the issue.

For the Democrats, they are left with a party that can only win with emotion. They have to make the GOP the Other, the Enemy, and appeal to emotion if they want to win because with the shift in sub-groups between the parties they no longer have the numbers (at least not distributed correctly) to win.

For the Republicans, they found that booting out the globalist faction made their platform in many respects more coherent and actually got much more substantial buy in from the rank and file party membership but it came at a cost; lost of institutional influence.

If Trump can pull off the win, and especially if the GOP can at least keep the Senate (and they could also claw back the House) then things will stabilize to some extent.

---
But no, the GOP has never really been a "conservative" party except when compared to the Democrats. Just like the Tories have never really been a "conservative" party except when compared to Labour. Conservative is a false label

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Conservative is a false label

Given that there are LGBT Trump voters and well, you know all the GamerGate, ComicsGate, MagicGate and other variants around who have come to HATE the Far Left alongside minorities who’ve come to also HATE the Far Left for letting criminals who so happen to be minorities screw them over

The Conservative party is ironically way more “progressive” and diverse and actually kinda ethically-hedonistic compared to the Far Left

You said the Left runs on “emotion” right? Well in my opinion, the one they run off most is pride, the kind wherein they can’t help but constantly try going on about how much more “compassionate” they are than some “evil” people out there and how they’re the future....going against this “pride” of theirs breaks them

 

[almostinsane]

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.

That hasn't been the case in my experience. I've known several irreligious people who have quietly begun to reconsider religion when they find that the objective values within it are better than secular ideologies.

Classical liberals don't really have an answer when the communists redefine owning property as aggression. The right to own property and be free of moral police, ironically, depends upon the existence and reverence for a natural law instituted by Nature and Nature's God.

 

[almostinsane]

You said the Left runs on “emotion” right? Well in my opinion, the one they run off most is pride, the kind wherein they can’t help but constantly try going on about how much more “compassionate” they are than some “evil” people out there and how they’re the future....going against this “pride” of theirs breaks them

Pride is one. Another is greed, gluttony, and envy. Most of all envy. They hate people having more stuff than them.

The Conservative party is ironically way more “progressive” and diverse and actually kinda ethically-hedonistic compared to the Far Left

Conservatives can never be progressive insofar as minorities just become another conservative. Their minority status is not important. Therefore, conservatives aren't progressive and "He isn't really x" comes into play.

 

[Bacle]

That hasn't been the case in my experience. I've known several irreligious people who have quietly begun to reconsider religion when they find that the objective values within it are better than secular ideologies.

Classical liberals don't really have an answer when the communists redefine owning property as aggression. The right to own property and be free of moral police, ironically, depends upon the existence and reverence for a natural law instituted by Nature and Nature's God.

I came to religion based off of...some events that shook my life, not because someone preached the right way or because I see religious figures as moral authorities. I understand people do come to it the way you described, but find

I see the divine in nature more than any human, even if I do think certain humans have been part of the divine (Jesus, Abraham, possibly Budda, maybe others), and have a perspective of deep/geological time that...well, puts it in a much more...detached perspective on human societies/history.

I can see wisdom in different religious groups, and even the possible environmental factors (volcanoes, meteors, floods, crop cycles) that may have molded the birth of those beliefs to perpetuate themselves.

As for arguing against the commies when it comes to property, you don't need religion to do that. I will point to funerary goods left at primitive human burials going back before civilization was a thing, which doesn't require any appeal to a 'religious' moral authority to show how private property is an innate part of what makes us human.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Pride is one. Another is greed, gluttony, and envy. Most of all envy. They hate people having more stuff than them.

This Envy probably also comes with a variation of Sloth

Remember Vic Mignogna? I've kinda talked it over with others, but there were possible reasons as to why he was #MeToo'd

Aside from being a Conservative and Religious, I think he was actually more successful than the rest of the English DUB VA's there

Possibly speaking, aside from being jealous of his success, they gave up on thinking they could ever really become better or more famous than him

Hell, this Sloth applies to their work, there's a possible line of thinking that simply being WOKE will negate or be a good shield against all the criticism regarding the quality and execution of their work. They're too lazy and too prideful to see what went wrong and correct it.

Greed & Gluttony? Well what they want isn't really worth much to begin with, but they want it, farming "likes" will compensate all the rent money. As for Gluttony? I doubt they're paid much to eat so much

 

[almostinsane]

Remember Vic Mignogna? I've kinda talked it over with others, but there were possible reasons as to why he was #

Fortunately, in these cases, there is legal recourse.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Fortunately, in these cases, there is legal recourse.

Problem is though, it takes quite awhile and I think by then it will take a long while for him to be hired again

When one accuses someone of rape or pedophilia, note that even without evidence, public opinion can render someone "guilty" and if they prove themselves innocent, public opinion will STILL declare them guilty

Trying to read Ayn Rand's An Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology

One way to sort of describe Far Left thinking is this "Just because it is/is not "logically true" does not mean it is/is not "factually true"

Lady maybe an atheist but even she'd probably agree with a theologian like CS Lewis on how dangerous "subjectivism" can be

 

[almostinsane]

Problem is though, it takes quite awhile and I think by then it will take a long while for him to be hired again

When one accuses someone of rape or pedophilia, note that even without evidence, public opinion can render someone "guilty" and if they prove themselves innocent, public opinion will STILL declare them guilty

Trying to read Ayn Rand's An Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology

One way to sort of describe Far Left thinking is this "Just because it is/is not "logically true" does not mean it is/is not "factually true"

Lady maybe an atheist but even she'd probably agree with a theologian like CS Lewis on how dangerous "subjectivism" can be

True. The Mike Pence Rule looks better and better everyday.

At least there's the counter-suing for Vic.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

True. The Mike Pence Rule looks better and better everyday.

At least there's the counter-suing for Vic.

Honestly, getting flashbacks to months ago with guys here making fun of the guys actively avoiding women to avoid getting #MeToo'd and saying they had nothing to be afraid of

Finding women who aren't Far Left or are ready or willing to use #MeToo against them maybe to varying degrees hard for you Westerners and hell, it could reduce the number of relationships due to men being too cautious or outright paranoid, but it will save them from the worst of it

And it may encourage men to get to know those women on a more personal level before devoting themselves to a possible predator

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

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.

There are virtually limitless modes of interpreting meaning and reality, but not every narrative is equally useful.