We Need To Stop Calling Ourselves Conservatives

[Skallagrim]

...why?

These people, first and foremost, are morons. They've got where they've got because the right of yesteryear fell asleep at the wheel, not through tactical brilliance. And decades of power have left them fat and easily frightened.

Defeating them is no easy task but it is more doable than some think, I reckon.

The people currently in power can certainly be cast out of power. But things are escalating as we speak, and will continue to do so. Already, the establishment and the populists hate each other. Compromise no longer exists. The elite does not intend to relinquish power. They are fat weaklings, but they do govern the institutions, and there is still power there.

This means civil war. Not just in one country, but across the board. Since animosity is increasing more and more (to put it very mildly), this will be a war to the knife. By the end, the establishment will resort to terrible means to stave off their own removal. And by the time that removal comes, their enemies/victims will be ready to exact brutal vengeance.

Which, in turn, carries the implication that whoever forces the current elite from power will not be nice or kind or good, either. Nor will it result in the overthrow of the system. Rather, the seizing of the system, and the deliberate use of its remaining institutional frame-work to persecute the enemy that has been thrown from power.

Only after that fails, too, will the present system finally collapse. Then we build new things. Or rather: we build old things anew.



TL;DR -- the coming conflict has no "good guys", and the most virtuous task in all of this is to rebuild after the conflict... and to now preserve as much as you can, carry it through the bad times, that it may still be cherished in later days.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

The people currently in power can certainly be cast out of power. But things are escalating as we speak, and will continue to do so. Already, the establishment and the populists hate each other. Compromise no longer exists. The elite does not intend to relinquish power. They are fat weaklings, but they do govern the institutions, and there is still power there.

This means civil war. Not just in one country, but across the board. Since animosity is increasing more and more (to put it very mildly), this will be a war to the knife. By the end, the establishment will resort to terrible means to stave off their own removal. And by the time that removal comes, their enemies/victims will be ready to exact brutal vengeance.

Which, in turn, carries the implication that whoever forces the current elite from power will not be nice or kind or good, either. Nor will it result in the overthrow of the system. Rather, the seizing of the system, and the deliberate use of its remaining institutional frame-work to persecute the enemy that has been thrown from power.

Only after that fails, too, will the present system finally collapse. Then we build new things. Or rather: we build old things anew.



TL;DR -- the coming conflict has no "good guys", and the most virtuous task in all of this is to rebuild after the conflict... and to now preserve as much as you can, carry it through the bad times, that it may still be cherished in later days.

To be totally honest with you, as of right now I'm just in the game for the sake of Christ and the small hedonistic pleasures of life. The pleasure of good food the hope of obtaining a wife I can love and spoil for the rest of my days. A house with some outdoor scenery, and enough financial security to support my lifestyle. I care not about the next generations or for building some sort of legacy, for when I close my eyes my only concerns will be that of judgment day.

Thing is the current regime is gun hoe about denying and regulating to death both the complex and the simple enjoyments in life.

 

[Atarlost]

The people currently in power can certainly be cast out of power. But things are escalating as we speak, and will continue to do so. Already, the establishment and the populists hate each other. Compromise no longer exists. The elite does not intend to relinquish power. They are fat weaklings, but they do govern the institutions, and there is still power there.

This means civil war. Not just in one country, but across the board. Since animosity is increasing more and more (to put it very mildly), this will be a war to the knife. By the end, the establishment will resort to terrible means to stave off their own removal. And by the time that removal comes, their enemies/victims will be ready to exact brutal vengeance.

Which, in turn, carries the implication that whoever forces the current elite from power will not be nice or kind or good, either. Nor will it result in the overthrow of the system. Rather, the seizing of the system, and the deliberate use of its remaining institutional frame-work to persecute the enemy that has been thrown from power.

Only after that fails, too, will the present system finally collapse. Then we build new things. Or rather: we build old things anew.

If, as you believe, those currently in power are cast down by those who wish to wield the same power they, too, by your own reasoning, will only be cast down in civil war. And you would sit that one out for the same reasons.

If people who want to overthrow the tyrannical system don't get their hands dirty in the fighting they'll never have a voice at the table and it'll never be overthrown.

 

[Skallagrim]

If, as you believe, those currently in power are cast down by those who wish to wield the same power they, too, by your own reasoning, will only be cast down in civil war. And you would sit that one out for the same reasons.

If people who want to overthrow the tyrannical system don't get their hands dirty in the fighting they'll never have a voice at the table and it'll never be overthrown.

Plato's nonsense again. "You must use the power against others or it will be used against you. Either suffer under Satan's whip, or become Satan and hold the whip."

No.

Because here's the truth: the money runs out. The house of cards collapses. The perpetuation of the present system isn't endless, because it carries the seeds of its own demise within itself. In fact, things are becoming so embittered and hostile because that moment draws near.

The system destroys itself just fine. There are plenty of constructive things to be done while it happens. Efforts aimed at... conservation.

 

[Atarlost]

Because here's the truth: the money runs out. The house of cards collapses. The perpetuation of the present system isn't endless, because it carries the seeds of its own demise within itself. In fact, things are becoming so embittered and hostile because that moment draws near.

Oh, I recognize that argument. It's from the Communist Manifesto.

The reality is that the money gets replaced with new money. A new house of tyranny is built and stands until it, too, decays to cards. Every time an empire falls or is driven out unless people like Washington and Madison are there with bloodied swords and dirty hands to shape the new system the cycle of empires is just that: cyclical.

 

[Skallagrim]

Oh, I recognize that argument. It's from the Communist Manifesto.

No, it's from the end of literally every time in history fiduciary currency has been adopted on a large scale and for extended duration. Nice smear, but it might help if you knew a bit more about monetary history.

The reality is that the money gets replaced with new money.

Which is ever less reliable, eroding the economy and all the public trust, culminating in socio-economic collapse. And yes, then there is new money, too-- but based on gold or some equivalent (but most likely gold, since it has a 10.000 year track record in the field).

A new house of tyranny is built and stands until it, too, decays to cards.

Technically true, except the "new tyranny" doesn't start all that tyrannical. You'll have a few quite decent centuries, after a major collapse of a big government system. Later on, the old errors creep back in again. But that's inevitable, because it's the nature of history... the nature of humanity.

the cycle of empires is just that: cyclical.

I thank you for telling me something about which I've literally written lengthy essays. What I'm telling you here is based on this observation.

Yes, all good times give way to bad times. And the reverse is true as well! Amazing!

That is precisely why trying to "fight the evil government and end their system!" is typically pointless. The system ends itself once it exhausts itself and its resources. Once you're already pretty close to the end of a particular phase, the priority is to survive the mess, not to get embroiled in it.

Messrs. Spengler, Toynbee, Riencourt, Turchin, Strauss and Howe (among others) thank you for your interest.

 

[Atarlost]

That is precisely why trying to "fight the evil government and end their system!" is typically pointless. The system ends itself once it exhausts itself and its resources. Once you're already pretty close to the end of a particular phase, the priority is to survive the mess, not to get embroiled in it.

It isn't people who don't fight who get a say in establishing the new order. It's the strongest barbarian tribe or rebellious vassal standing in the ruins.

Your fantasies about being a monk preserving knowledge are futile because the barbarians are already literate. They have their own cultures and don't need or want yours. The only ones who will tolerate the preservation of anything are the rebellious vassals and if you are standing around condemning them as being as evil as their decadent predecessors you'll have no say in any of it.

If you fight you might lose, but in the fertile crescent before the soil washed away rebellious vassal succeeded rebellious vassal for multiple civilizational cycles so it's possible to win. If you don't fight your children will be the slaves of the Muslim.

 

[Skallagrim]

It isn't people who don't fight who get a say in establishing the new order. It's the strongest barbarian tribe or rebellious vassal standing in the ruins.

Your fantasies about being a monk preserving knowledge are futile because the barbarians are already literate. They have their own cultures and don't need or want yours. The only ones who will tolerate the preservation of anything are the rebellious vassals and if you are standing around condemning them as being as evil as their decadent predecessors you'll have no say in any of it.

If you fight you might lose, but in the fertile crescent before the soil washed away rebellious vassal succeeded rebellious vassal for multiple civilizational cycles so it's possible to win. If you don't fight your children will be the slaves of the Muslim.

Your understanding of history is... somewhat lacking. You're thinking of the Post-Roman Dark Ages, whereas what we're facing is more the transition of the dying Republic to the Principate. (Note that Caesar's seizure of power from the traditional elite didn't end well, and that Augustus was an arch-conservative who lowered taxes, shrunk the government, and reduced the scope of the military.)

Even in the Dark Ages analogy, you're dramatically under-estimating the role of monasteries, as well as their typically fruitful relations with the secular powers in the Post-Roman world. I could recommend a few books on the matter if you'd like.

Finally, your assertion that if you don't fight, muslims will take over is... highly questionable. A collapse of Europe in a manner that produces islamic rule over (parts of) Western Europe is possible, but it's a low probability scenario. (You're also misinformed about the extent to which foreigners who co-opt an existing civilisation ultimately adopt tenets of that civilisation-- it typically happens to a far greater degree than you imagine, which you'd know if you'd studied, say, the history of the Mughals. Perhaps I might recommend some good books on that as well?)

My ultimate point is that (although you may not view it in these terms) your argument boils down to "Try to be (or at least help) Caesar, whose arrival draws near!", whereas my argument is "Caesar was hardly any better than his rivals, and it ended in bloodshed and more fighting anyway, so it's better to wait for Augustus, and contribute to the intellectual and cultural renaissance of the Principate."

 

[Abhorsen]

My ultimate point is that (although you may not view it in these terms) your argument boils down to "Try to be (or at least help) Caesar, whose arrival draws near!", whereas my argument is "Caesar was hardly any better than his rivals, and it ended in bloodshed and more fighting anyway, so it's better to wait for Augustus, and contribute to the intellectual and cultural renaissance of the Principate."

Eh, I'd say it's nowhere near lost. We've been in shittier situations before, and come out of it. The new left was bombing everywhere in the 60s, and it collapsed. I think this is very survivable.

 

[Cherico]

Your understanding of history is... somewhat lacking. You're thinking of the Post-Roman Dark Ages, whereas what we're facing is more the transition of the dying Republic to the Principate. (Note that Caesar's seizure of power from the traditional elite didn't end well, and that Augustus was an arch-conservative who lowered taxes, shrunk the government, and reduced the scope of the military.)

Even in the Dark Ages analogy, you're dramatically under-estimating the role of monasteries, as well as their typically fruitful relations with the secular powers in the Post-Roman world. I could recommend a few books on the matter if you'd like.

Finally, your assertion that if you don't fight, muslims will take over is... highly questionable. A collapse of Europe in a manner that produces islamic rule over (parts of) Western Europe is possible, but it's a low probability scenario. (You're also misinformed about the extent to which foreigners who co-opt an existing civilisation ultimately adopt tenets of that civilisation-- it typically happens to a far greater degree than you imagine, which you'd know if you'd studied, say, the history of the Mughals. Perhaps I might recommend some good books on that as well?)

My ultimate point is that (although you may not view it in these terms) your argument boils down to "Try to be (or at least help) Caesar, whose arrival draws near!", whereas my argument is "Caesar was hardly any better than his rivals, and it ended in bloodshed and more fighting anyway, so it's better to wait for Augustus, and contribute to the intellectual and cultural renaissance of the Principate."

I'm not trying to ruin your day but I do want the names of those books. Not because I think your wrong but because they sound like pretty good books.

 

[Earl]

reduced the scope of the military.

Truely the greatest of the Romans. A lesser man would of been stabbed for that let’s go look at how his successors did on this…Oh dear.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

To be totally honest with you, as of right now I'm just in the game for the sake of Christ and the small hedonistic pleasures of life. The pleasure of good food the hope of obtaining a wife I can love and spoil for the rest of my days. A house with some outdoor scenery, and enough financial security to support my lifestyle. I care not about the next generations or for building some sort of legacy, for when I close my eyes my only concerns will be that of judgment day.

So I was talking to my parents about current events during a family gathering and my mother pointed out that the term hedonist would not be a good descriptor of me and I was using the term wrong. so not sure what I am other than tired in regard to current events.

 

[Cherico]

Your understanding of history is... somewhat lacking. You're thinking of the Post-Roman Dark Ages, whereas what we're facing is more the transition of the dying Republic to the Principate. (Note that Caesar's seizure of power from the traditional elite didn't end well, and that Augustus was an arch-conservative who lowered taxes, shrunk the government, and reduced the scope of the military.)

Even in the Dark Ages analogy, you're dramatically under-estimating the role of monasteries, as well as their typically fruitful relations with the secular powers in the Post-Roman world. I could recommend a few books on the matter if you'd like.

Finally, your assertion that if you don't fight, muslims will take over is... highly questionable. A collapse of Europe in a manner that produces islamic rule over (parts of) Western Europe is possible, but it's a low probability scenario. (You're also misinformed about the extent to which foreigners who co-opt an existing civilisation ultimately adopt tenets of that civilisation-- it typically happens to a far greater degree than you imagine, which you'd know if you'd studied, say, the history of the Mughals. Perhaps I might recommend some good books on that as well?)

My ultimate point is that (although you may not view it in these terms) your argument boils down to "Try to be (or at least help) Caesar, whose arrival draws near!", whereas my argument is "Caesar was hardly any better than his rivals, and it ended in bloodshed and more fighting anyway, so it's better to wait for Augustus, and contribute to the intellectual and cultural renaissance of the Principate."

the thing is can you have an agustus with out having a ceasar first?

 

[ParadiseLost]

the thing is can you have an agustus with out having a ceasar first?

Or to put it in a more self evident way: can you have Solomon without David first?

 

[AnimalNoodles]

the thing is can you have an agustus with out having a ceasar first?

You will get neither. The Bioleninist state will produce a Mugabe, then comes disintegration.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

You will get neither. The Bioleninist state will produce a Mugabe, then comes disintegration.

(Sigh)

Life and soul of the party, aren't you?

 

[AnimalNoodles]

(Sigh)

Life and soul of the party, aren't you?

No, im a realist.

Intersectionality is a caste system that allows the ruling cohort to divide potential opposition and organise its clients to extract and distribute the wealth of intersectional underclasses. Along the racial axis this will be whites. As long as there is significant wealth to be pillaged from the intersectional underclass, intersectionality will hold. But as this wealth declines, the system will decline and will require more and more extreme measures to hold it together. To keep the system together we are going to get a mugabe figure, an intersectional totalitarian that will outright seize wealth from whites, males, straights and other underclasses in the intersectional system and directly subjugate their rights in order to do so.

But eventually 4 things are going to happen

1) the wealth runs out
2) the alliance falls apart
3) pressures creating a growing ethnogenesis amongst whites
4) an aspiring elite within the former alliance begins to mobilise the intersectional underclasses to grab power for itself.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

No, im a realist.

Nah, mate, you’re fucking miserable.

 

[Proxy 404]

the call
We Need To Stop Calling Ourselves Conservatives
my response

in that the people using it don't actually want to conserve what we have but inflict a state thats never existed on a majority that wont stand for it

 

[AnimalNoodles]

the call
We Need To Stop Calling Ourselves Conservatives
my response

in that the people using it don't actually want to conserve what we have but inflict a state thats never existed on a majority that wont stand for it

we are standing for it, thats why its being inflicted on us.