United States Professor David Azerrad Verbally Owns American Conservatism

Whitestrake Pelinal

Like a dream without a dreamer
I'm only an accelerationist in the sense that I want the Left to burn itself up, because that's the only thing that will defeat it at this stage. I follow the passivist strategy of Curtis Yarvin: the Left is only able to carry on because it has an "opponent," a stuffed dragon that it can puppeteer and use to rile up its minions. Most of what passes as Leftist ideology consists in scapegoating people for their lies. Don't act in a way that will allow Hollywood to cast you as the villain of one of their propaganda films, and you'll deprive them of scapegoats. And then, they'll start defaulting on their debts.
This is not a reasonable claim, because it has repeatedly proven false in multiple nations that fell to leftism. Their practice, from old Soviet Russia to modern Venezuela, has never been to depend on real enemies or opponents. They simply label whoever is convenient as wreckers, Kulaks, capitalist saboteurs. The fact that the leftists were obviously at fault for the struggling state of their nation does not matter so long as they have security forces willing to hold someone else responsible -- and a pattern that has repeated in leftist nations is that the security forces (i.e. Stalinists) take over their countries within a single generation. They pay lip service to leftist rhetoric while focusing on extracting resources from the nation for their own high lifestyles.

Conservatives can be faulted for being weak, ineffectual opposition that routinely simps for the left and punches right in interviews with leftist media, doing the work of leftists for them. They cannot be faulted simply for being present as opposition -- leftists do not require legitimate opposition of any sort to assign labels and treat targets as opponents.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Umm...

This will never work. Reality doesn't mean ANYTHING to them.

If everyone on the right acted as well as they possibly could they would simply make up perceived offenses and lie about them.

Yes, but the best lies are made up of half-truths. The more of a lie that is false, the less believable it is. If the Left makes up a boogeyman, and then you act almost exactly like the boogeyman in question, will their lies be more or less plausible?

That's half of what I'm saying for people to do: don't be the boogeyman.

This is not a reasonable claim, because it has repeatedly proven false in multiple nations that fell to leftism. Their practice, from old Soviet Russia to modern Venezuela, has never been to depend on real enemies or opponents. They simply label whoever is convenient as wreckers, Kulaks, capitalist saboteurs. The fact that the leftists were obviously at fault for the struggling state of their nation does not matter so long as they have security forces willing to hold someone else responsible -- and a pattern that has repeated in leftist nations is that the security forces (i.e. Stalinists) take over their countries within a single generation. They pay lip service to leftist rhetoric while focusing on extracting resources from the nation for their own high lifestyles.

Conservatives can be faulted for being weak, ineffectual opposition that routinely simps for the left and punches right in interviews with leftist media, doing the work of leftists for them. They cannot be faulted simply for being present as opposition -- leftists do not require legitimate opposition of any sort to assign labels and treat targets as opponents.

And how long did it take for their regimes to collapse in on themselves? For the Soviets, a mere seventy years. A single human lifetime, a blink of an eye in the history of humanity. I believe that authoritarian societies can last for a good while. But societies based on mendacity cannot.

I believe that Conservatives can be faulted for presenting themselves as the only way to oppose the Left while being "simps" for the Left. To give an example, Dennis Prager will drone on all day about how his conservatism is the only way. Meanwhile, he goes from claiming that rejecting homosexuality was revolution in moral thought to promoting gay "conservatives." Every time you give your money to people like this, you just encourage them. The current political fight isn't between Leftism and Conservatism, but between Leftism 2.0 and Leftism 1.0. Am I wrong in saying this?

@The Name of Love if you are willing, I'd like to ask this. How much can Liberalism be a component of a future philosophy for the Right, in your eyes?
Liberalism must be important in order to create a post-liberal system. We must take the liberal position and go forward. I do see a tendency among right-wingers to just be anti-liberal and be the opposite of everything liberalism stands for reflexively. Becoming a Neo-Nazi in modern America to oppose the Left is about as stupid as becoming a Satanist in medieval Europe to oppose the Catholic Church. You don't want to be a Satanist, you want to be Martin Luther (if that makes sense).

I've said before: we're in the ideas-planning stage of post-liberalism. The rejection of liberalism is only the beginning of thought. Once you do, it opens up a world of possibilities. What positions about God, free will, and the nature of human flourishing should be the basis for the social order? If proper gender roles aren't inherently bad, then is the proper relationship between the sexes? If there isn't a general right to immigration or religious freedom, then what duties do immigrants and ideological minorities have? By rejecting the mainstream liberal narrative, all you've done is eliminate an easy answer.

This is one of the things that Right-wingers should be putting their money towards: theorizing! We should be researching new ideas about what works and experimenting on a small scale. Instead, we're basically recycling the same talking points over and over again.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
I've said before: we're in the ideas-planning stage of post-liberalism. The rejection of liberalism is only the beginning of thought. Once you do, it opens up a world of possibilities. What positions about God, free will, and the nature of human flourishing should be the basis for the social order? If proper gender roles aren't inherently bad, then is the proper relationship between the sexes? If there isn't a general right to immigration or religious freedom, then what duties do immigrants and ideological minorities have? By rejecting the mainstream liberal narrative, all you've done is eliminate an easy answer.

This is one of the things that Right-wingers should be putting their money towards: theorizing! We should be researching new ideas about what works and experimenting on a small scale. Instead, we're basically recycling the same talking points over and over again.

You might be only at this stage, but a lot of us have been working through the ideas stage for a very long time. For me, I started that about twenty years ago. Go read/listen to Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, and Rush Limbaugh.

You're just as bad as the hard leftists, acting like nobody has been taking the fight seriously before you came along.
 

Curved_Sw0rd

Just Like That Bluebird
Liberalism must be important in order to create a post-liberal system. We must take the liberal position and go forward. I do see a tendency among right-wingers to just be anti-liberal and be the opposite of everything liberalism stands for reflexively. Becoming a Neo-Nazi in modern America to oppose the Left is about as stupid as becoming a Satanist in medieval Europe to oppose the Catholic Church. You don't want to be a Satanist, you want to be Martin Luther (if that makes sense).

I've said before: we're in the ideas-planning stage of post-liberalism. The rejection of liberalism is only the beginning of thought. Once you do, it opens up a world of possibilities. What positions about God, free will, and the nature of human flourishing should be the basis for the social order? If proper gender roles aren't inherently bad, then is the proper relationship between the sexes? If there isn't a general right to immigration or religious freedom, then what duties do immigrants and ideological minorities have? By rejecting the mainstream liberal narrative, all you've done is eliminate an easy answer.

This is one of the things that Right-wingers should be putting their money towards: theorizing! We should be researching new ideas about what works and experimenting on a small scale. Instead, we're basically recycling the same talking points over and over again.
These kinds of questions are important, after all there's no perfect system out there. And I'll agree with LordsFire here and say the Right has very much been doing that, it's been adapting to all sorts of Leftist garbage being spewed.

Perhaps the pertinent question is "What are we missing?" at least in your eyes.
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
a mere seventy years. A single human lifetime, a blink of an eye in the history of humanity.
That's all well and good until you are the one suffering under it for those years and plus the Soviet's are bad examples especially when the Chinese have by this point almost reached the same length of communist rule and unlike the soviet's show no signs of a collapse anytime soon.
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
Their economy's a house of cards with many signals of debt implosion.
I will believe it will collapse when it does, their situation is still far better than the Soviet's ever were in 1990 and beyond that they actually export things and make money which is quite sadly more than I can say for ourselves at the moment.

Remember if you told somebody in 1985 the Soviet's were going bye, bye they would have called you crazy it could be the same now but I severely doubt it.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
You might be only at this stage, but a lot of us have been working through the ideas stage for a very long time. For me, I started that about twenty years ago. Go read/listen to Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, and Rush Limbaugh.

You're just as bad as the hard leftists, acting like nobody has been taking the fight seriously before you came along.

I don't doubt they've been taking the fight seriously. They just have some serious flaws in their approach. If Rush Limbaugh is the best we have, then we're screwed.

These kinds of questions are important, after all there's no perfect system out there. And I'll agree with LordsFire here and say the Right has very much been doing that, it's been adapting to all sorts of Leftist garbage being spewed.

Perhaps the pertinent question is "What are we missing?" at least in your eyes.

How about... an actual alternative to Leftism (as opposed to modern conservatism, which is just Leftism minus twenty or so years)? An answer to the problems of modernity and post-modernity? Or, at the bare minimum, just a realization of the situation on the ground, rather than pretending that it's still the 1980s? These aren't hard, people. I understand that modern conservatives can be (and sometimes are) intellectually serious, but that doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

That's all well and good until you are the one suffering under it for those years and plus the Soviet's are bad examples especially when the Chinese have by this point almost reached the same length of communist rule and unlike the soviet's show no signs of a collapse anytime soon.
My friend, unless an actual Right wing (as opposed to the Right wing we have now) takes power, we're going to have the kind of socialism you fear. I mean, how is giving even more money to the people who are losing and will continue to lose going to help us?
 

Whitestrake Pelinal

Like a dream without a dreamer
And how long did it take for their regimes to collapse in on themselves? For the Soviets, a mere seventy years. A single human lifetime, a blink of an eye in the history of humanity. I believe that authoritarian societies can last for a good while. But societies based on mendacity cannot.
It sure as fuck wasn't a blink of an eye for the humans living in those times. It wouldn't be for our children if they are made to endure them, either. This is not a useful way to examine the threat of sustained leftist dominance in the West.

I believe that Conservatives can be faulted for presenting themselves as the only way to oppose the Left while being "simps" for the Left. To give an example, Dennis Prager will drone on all day about how his conservatism is the only way. Meanwhile, he goes from claiming that rejecting homosexuality was revolution in moral thought to promoting gay "conservatives." Every time you give your money to people like this, you just encourage them. The current political fight isn't between Leftism and Conservatism, but between Leftism 2.0 and Leftism 1.0. Am I wrong in saying this?
You are correct in your specific example of PragerU, and with regards to Conservatives who simp for the left or make an all-or-nothing argument regarding supporting Conservatism in general. Not all of them do that, so while the 'movement' or 'ideology' of Conservatism is crap, there are many individual Conservatives who are worthy of support because they do real work. Almost all defenders of gun rights call themselves Conservatives, for example.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
It sure as fuck wasn't a blink of an eye for the humans living in those times. It wouldn't be for our children if they are made to endure them, either. This is not a useful way to examine the threat of sustained leftist dominance in the West.

What is a useful way to do so, then?

You are correct in your specific example of PragerU, and with regards to Conservatives who simp for the left or make an all-or-nothing argument regarding supporting Conservatism in general. Not all of them do that, so while the 'movement' or 'ideology' of Conservatism is crap, there are many individual Conservatives who are worthy of support because they do real work. Almost all defenders of gun rights call themselves Conservatives, for example.

I never really said otherwise. In fact, I find those conservatives very pleasant. But they are serving a power structure that is complete self-serving and self-destructive. I think Julius Krein had the right idea when he said:

The Republican Party... faces a very different problem—the absence of any significant professional elite, which abandoned the party long ago.

From its inception, modern conservatism has opposed the professional managerial class that came to dominate business and government in the mid-twentieth century. Despite often shrill rhetoric against this “new class,” however, conservatives could never reduce its size or importance in the modern economy. Instead, Republican policies merely encouraged this class to shift into finance and adjacent sectors. At the same time, conservatives sought to build their own new class by setting up parallel institutions in academia, media, law, policy planning, and so on.

Initially, the new conservative apparatus was fairly successful. But institutions built on ideological conformity inevitably tend to ossify. They also tend to be populated by mediocrities who are only there because they cannot make it into the top-tier institutions. After the rest of the professional class decamped to the Democrats, this husk was all that remained of the politically active professional elite on the right. The conservative institutions became as detached and self-referential as the “postmodern” academy they criticize, and they long ago ceased to have any significant influence on broader elite discourse. Today, their main offering to new recruits is the chance to someday apply for affirmative action for conservatives. The result is a highly stratified and largely dysfunctional Republican Party: a few billionaires and corporate interests (mainly those who cannot fit into the more attractive progressive neoliberal program) pay their second-rate propagandists to offer a discredited and incoherent policy agenda to an increasingly disaffected voter base.

From the Republican establishment’s perspective, however, this weakness is also its strength. By repelling all professional elites except those content to be sinecurists of relatively unsavory donors, the conservative new class minimizes any internal threats to its survival, and the donors maintain total control over the party. The voters may openly despise their own party’s “establishment”; they may begin voting for “unacceptable” candidates and causes; yet, ultimately, they cannot set policy priorities or provide government personnel. If more elite professionals remained in the Republican Party, they might take advantage of voter discontent to challenge the billionaires and replace the entire decrepit apparatus. They would likely find that task much easier on the right than it is in the Democratic Party.

As it stands, however, the conservative movement can continue to lurch on as a zombified superstructure. If nothing else, it still unconsciously serves an important purpose: advancing the interests of, while providing a useful foil for, the more important billionaires in the Democratic Party.

[...]

Conservative donor gatherings are somehow even more pathetic [than the American billionaire class as a whole]. Most of the attendees are there only because they are not smart enough to recognize that the Democratic Party offers a far more effective reputation laundering service. The rest are probably too senile to know where they are at all. There is often a special irony to these events: an uninspiring ideologue is usually on hand to repeat a decades-old speech decrying Communism—recounting the horrors experienced in countries ruled by a self-dealing, incompetent nomenklatura and marked by a decaying industrial base, crumbling infrastructure, poor education system, a demoralized populace, low confidence in public institutions, falling life expectancy, repeated foreign policy failures, a vast and arbitrary carceral system, constant surveillance, and even massive power outages in major cities. Imagine that.

A large part of this is just the overall decay that has set in in the West. We need some revival. If these are our forces, then we have lost. That's what I want to tell conservatives.
 

Curved_Sw0rd

Just Like That Bluebird
How about... an actual alternative to Leftism (as opposed to modern conservatism, which is just Leftism minus twenty or so years)? An answer to the problems of modernity and post-modernity? Or, at the bare minimum, just a realization of the situation on the ground, rather than pretending that it's still the 1980s? These aren't hard, people. I understand that modern conservatives can be (and sometimes are) intellectually serious, but that doesn't mean they aren't wrong.
Where would you say modern Classical Liberals and Libertarians fail in that regard? Is it simply a lack of coherence? I've found the most compelling voices to be those who've had a good long time to work out a grounded philosophy.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Where would you say modern Classical Liberals and Libertarians fail in that regard? Is it simply a lack of coherence? I've found the most compelling voices to be those who've had a good long time to work out a grounded philosophy.
Oh my, where do I begin?

First, mainstream conservatism IS Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism, as stated by Jeremy Boreing, the Founder of the Daily Wire. I don't think you make much of a distinction between the two. If there is, I haven't really found it.

Second, these groups seem not to understand the actual problems and, in fact, contribute to the overall problems. For instance, they are the types of people who would militate against right-wing government action because "you'd be no different from the Left."

And to top it off, I think it's just a false way to look at governance overall. Not to say that these philosophies don't have anything going for them, nor do I believe that they have bad people within their movements, but I find that when I talk to these people, they have these massive blindspots that come from having very different priorities from what I care about. The porn debate I had on this website was a perfect example of this.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Personally I’m of the opinion that we may need unpalatable options at this point.

Either some sort of echo of the 1930s in terms of a revolutionary fascist movement, or an aggressive religious dominionism.

Of some kind.

Maybe we’re looking at this wrong.

Perhaps to be a conservative in this system is merely to keep the madness and march to Hell somewhat stayed and restrained.

Maybe what we need is a revolutionary way of looking at it. The whole system is rotten and is not a friend of ours. And never will be.

Trying to capture or recapture it would take decades which is time we do not have.

The whole edifice is rotten and is why we are where we are now.

Once a house is so infested with termites and decay your only option is to burn the house down and build over the rubble.

Maybe we need to start thinking of ourselves as revolutionaries against a rotten order.

And not reactionaries-because that just means we’re going back to something before. Whether that be the 1950s, 1250s, or 1850s.

Obviously we want a different sort of revolution than what the far left does, with a different outcome in mind.

But perhaps conservatism which emerged when the march through the institutions was only beginning, has come to the end of its road.

We need something that is both transformative and restorative. Something that restores the glory of the past and transforms the rot and degeneracy of the present.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
I think fundamentally the problem with our world is that it is too small.

Humanity at some level needs a frontier, new horizons to settle and create new places to live, and that If we don't have them the manic souls in humanity start eating and devouring every one else. We need to leave this rock and start setting up oniel cylidners start creating new communities new societies new countries in mass.

At least that's the long term solution.
 

Curved_Sw0rd

Just Like That Bluebird
Oh my, where do I begin?

First, mainstream conservatism IS Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism, as stated by Jeremy Boreing, the Founder of the Daily Wire. I don't think you make much of a distinction between the two. If there is, I haven't really found it.

Second, these groups seem not to understand the actual problems and, in fact, contribute to the overall problems. For instance, they are the types of people who would militate against right-wing government action because "you'd be no different from the Left."

And to top it off, I think it's just a false way to look at governance overall. Not to say that these philosophies don't have anything going for them, nor do I believe that they have bad people within their movements, but I find that when I talk to these people, they have these massive blindspots that come from having very different priorities from what I care about. The porn debate I had on this website was a perfect example of this.
I mean I would argue that there's benefit as well as cost to an unwillingness to use authoritative power. Though I think the disagreements really do boil down to personal preferences when you dig deep enough down. I tend towards wanting as little government as is possible while still having effective rules.

Personally I’m of the opinion that we may need unpalatable options at this point.

Either some sort of echo of the 1930s in terms of a revolutionary fascist movement, or an aggressive religious dominionism.
What the actual fuck?
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
I mean I would argue that there's benefit as well as cost to an unwillingness to use authoritative power. Though I think the disagreements really do boil down to personal preferences when you dig deep enough down. I tend towards wanting as little government as is possible while still having effective rules.


What the actual fuck?
? I didn’t say fascism. I said something similar.

Did you read the post? I said we might need to consider ourselves revolutionaries, not conservatives.

Milquetoast mainstream conservatism isn’t cutting it. So we are left with a few options. None of them particularly pleasant or mainstream.

(That is within dominant norms of discourse).
 

Curved_Sw0rd

Just Like That Bluebird
? I didn’t say fascism. I said something similar.

Did you read the post? I said we might need to consider ourselves revolutionaries, not conservatives.

Milquetoast mainstream conservatism isn’t cutting it. So we are left with a few options. None of them particularly pleasant or mainstream.

(That is within dominant norms of discourse).
You might want to lead with that line I bolded, next time.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
You might want to lead with that line I bolded, next time.
I’m just putting a suggestion out here. No advocacy from me. Witness all the qualifying language in the post.

If we can’t even honestly evaluate the state of modern conservatism then we are doomed indeed.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top