How Do We Revive Conservativism?

[Lemmingwise]

IMO, the total reset option requires total collapse across the world in order to be viable, in order to make all global powers regionally focused instead of meddling in others' affairs.

Yes good idea. A great reset. And then we can build back better.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

The narrative is really quite simple: humans are an intellectually curious and innovative species, and this innovation and curiosity has radically altered the way we live our lives: most notably since the advent of the industrial revolution. Ideological assumptions about how we ought to live which are based upon past circumstances, therefore, are increasingly going to find themselves out of step with the realities of the present; hence our move away from them.

Except that the Industrial Revolution isn't possibly able to uproot the millions of years of evolution and the thousands of years of civilization prior to it, all of which is far more embedded into our fundamental psyches and the bases for our societies/societal assumptions compared to the Industrial Revolution and its consequences. Put another way, our needs are governed by assumptions and processes that are much older than the Industrial Revolution, to the point that despite its effects, those effects are still ultimately shone though said assumptions and processes as though they were a prism-- it's not a distinct, alien event unmoored by the rest of history.

You're not going to convince anyone that a string of events starting from the late 1700s have so fundamentally transformed society as to obviate the millions of years of evolution without. It couldn't even obviate slavery-- the institution is alive and well even in sufficiently technologically advanced countries because other countries that technically don't practice the institution outsource labor to said countries to bump their profit margins, knowing full well the conditions of those laborers.

I reckon you severely overestimate how much humans have changed.

Because the only reason it became a "major ideology" in the first place is because it's demands suited the changing circumstances I've been talking about.

In what world is rampant single motherhood resultant of the decay of the family structure (to give one result of second wave feminism) suited to anything?

There are plenty of societies in the East which never had anything comparable to Western feminism, and yet the results were the same.

If we actually talked about those societies, I reckon we'd find that you're either wrong in saying that they "never had anything comparable to Western feminism" or that their society had undergone a distinctly different transformation that just happened to yield a similar result because of their unique conditions.

By making everything political, you're grossly simplifying a much deeper phenomenon.

Feminism is an umbrella of ideologies that is applied in politics. It's a social phenomenon that isn't inherently political.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Except that the Industrial Revolution isn't possibly able to uproot the millions of years of evolution and the thousands of years of civilization prior to it, all of which is far more embedded into our fundamental psyches and the bases for our societies/societal assumptions compared to the Industrial Revolution and its consequences. Put another way, our needs are governed by assumptions and processes that are much older than the Industrial Revolution, to the point that despite its effects, those effects are still ultimately shone though said assumptions and processes as though they were a prism-- it's not a distinct, alien event unmoored by the rest of history.

The industrial revolution did uproot the millennia-old social norms of agrarian civilization, and to pretend otherwise is flatly delusional. I don't see how evolution could be held up as a refutation of this point, either, since the entire lesson of evolution is that changing environments necessitate changes in the means of adaptation, and we can clearly observe this in humans.

Even the urban-rural divide in average social attitudes paints a consistent picture in this regard, and civilization clearly isn't moving in a rural direction (more people live in cities now than ever before, and this is projected to increase to nearly 70% of the global population by 2050). To act like this is just a coincidence or of little consequence to the way that people think about life strikes me as highly incurious.

If we actually talked about those societies, I reckon we'd find that you're either wrong in saying that they "never had anything comparable to Western feminism" or that their society had undergone a distinctly different transformation that just happened to yield a similar result because of their unique conditions.

It "happened to yield a similar result" because the factors I've been talking about were the same, which clearly points towards them being the common denominator. Societies which experience industrialization, urbanization, and rising living standards invariably see a rise in divorce rates, a fall in fertility, and a demand for more female empowerment, and this is just as true in Saudi Arabia and Iran as it is in the United States or Sweden. The only real difference is that the former examples are experiencing the effects much more rapidly.

Feminism is an umbrella of ideologies that is applied in politics. It's a social phenomenon that isn't inherently political.

Which was precisely the point I was making to you. If you only look at the political manifestations of social change, you'll miss the underlying causes.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

The industrial revolution did uproot the millennia-old social norms of agrarian civilization, and to pretend otherwise is flatly delusional.

Again, the Industrial Revolution isn't an alien event that happens to find its way into the flow of human history. It's a human event that indisputably changes much but is incapable of overwriting human nature in its extremely short timespan.

I don't see how evolution could be held up as a refutation of this point, either, since the entire lesson of evolution is that changing environments necessitate changes in the means of adaptation, and we can clearly observe this in humans.

The scope of evolution is tangibly measured in millions of years and leaves biological changes that often last for that long.

It "happened to yield a similar result" because the factors I've been talking about were the same, which clearly points towards them being the common denominator. Societies which experience industrialization, urbanization, and rising living standards invariably see a rise in divorce rates, a fall in fertility, and a demand for more female empowerment

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the Industrial Revolution was a late 20th century phenomenon.

It's an allegation that doesn't make much sense on its face. The reason why divorce rates were low in the States was because no-fault divorce wasn't the law in any state until the 70s, at a time when the family structure was already dissolving between the sexual revolution and the welfare state financially obviating marriage, and in an applied court system that would prove to be biased (and biased towards women, no less). What does that have to do with the Industrial Revolution, apart from happening after it?

While you insist that I'm only looking at the "political manifestations" rather than the underlying causes of social change (a bit more on that below), you use the Industrial Revolution as your magic bullet without actually trying to tie it to other operative events. Even the narrative you provided earlier is a black box that boils down to "the industrial revolution changed everything and since every norm they had back then was based on past assumptions those assumptions fell out of step".

Which was precisely the point I was making to you. If you only look at the political manifestations of social change, you'll miss the underlying causes.

"Political manifestations"? As in, changing laws, as opposed to demographic and cultural changes that may or may not be caused by changing laws?

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Again, the Industrial Revolution isn't an alien event that happens to find its way into the flow of human history. It's a human event that indisputably changes much but is incapable of overwriting human nature in its extremely short timespan.

It doesn't have to overwrite human nature; it just has to change the way it manifests.

There are plenty of ways that our nature can be channeled in wildly different ways depending upon the environment, and there is perhaps no better example of this than our relationship to food: whereas once upon a time our innate cravings for calorie-rich foods drove us to want to endure blisteringly cold temperatures to hunt for bison; today it makes us want to pick up the phone and order a pizza. The nature is the same, but the behavior that results from it is extremely different.

By the same token, ways of structuring our lives that were once optimal in past circumstances may no longer be optimal for people today, and I think you need to seriously reflect on whether this applies to a lot of the social mores advocated by conservatives, because the way I see it, trying to convince people to return to a pre-sexual revolution social dynamic would be like trying to convince a 300lb American to hunt for bison instead of ordering a pizza.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the Industrial Revolution was a late 20th century phenomenon.

The industrial revolution might not be a 20th century phenomenon, but the comfortable, middle class living standards it ultimately gave rise to most certainly are, and it's only really since the 1950s that this way of life has been the norm in the West.

Do you seriously believe it's a coincidence that the feminist movement initially began among upper-middle class women of means, and then gradually filtered down to everyone else as that way of life became mainstream? Do you really think it's a coincidence that the sexual revolution started just a few years after the invention of the birth control pill?

It's an allegation that doesn't make much sense on its face. The reason why divorce rates were low in the States was because no-fault divorce wasn't the law in any state until the 70s, at a time when the family structure was already dissolving between the sexual revolution and the welfare state financially obviating marriage, and in an applied court system that would prove to be biased (and biased towards women, no less). What does that have to do with the Industrial Revolution, apart from happening after it?

There's plenty of countries in Europe that never had no-fault divorce, and yet the divorce rate experienced a similar rise to the one observed in the United States at around the same time. You can't blame these social changes entirely upon the law, because A) that doesn't explain why there would be a popular demand for the law to change in the first place, and B) it completely robs people of their agency.

People who are happily married don't file for divorce, regardless of what the law says. You need a better explanation for why people suddenly decided that they no longer wished to adhere to social expectations that were once strong enough to assuage them.

Someone mentioned them earlier, but take a look at the Amish. Did changing laws ever result in the kind of social changes we observe in the wider culture among their population? The answer is clearly no, and your point of view has no way of rationally explaining this; mine does.

 

[Duke Nukem]

We can't revive conservatism, 1984 is here, and you are the last of your kind.

 

[Lord Neeba]

Genuine conservatism, as opposed to classical liberalism masquerading as conservatism, was never a significant force in American politics, not since the defeat of the Loyalists in the American Revolution at least. European conservatism in turn died in the trenches of World War I.

 

[Slap47]

Genuine conservatism, as opposed to classical liberalism masquerading as conservatism, was never a significant force in American politics, not since the defeat of the Loyalists in the American Revolution at least. European conservatism in turn died in the trenches of World War I.

Thats the funny thing about conservatism. Most American conservatives are nationalistic liberals who hate unelected elites, idealize decentralized authority, and want expanded civil liberties (regarding anything that doesn't offend the nation).

American Conservatism is strange because the golden age they look to (1950s) was a golden ages of internationalism, and New Dealism, while their other golden age (1980s) was the explosion of the very neoliberalism they reject with their populist impulse.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

I've thought about this a lot, and like most of you, I really wish we could revive the conservative way of life. It's become so bad that a lot of conservatives don't even realize they're conservative. I want to see trannies, marxists, and their teachers kicked out of schools. I don't want to hear about donut punching blacks wearing fucking hijabs. I don't want immigrants anywhere near me or my children unless they're white or Japanese. I want to restore the black family unit in Europe and the new world along with the traditional family unit, period. I want the homeless to be forced into nuthouses where they belong. The only catch is, how in the hell do we further our political agenda?

Is the only thing that can shock us back into our senses another world war?

This post is satire, right?

 

[Mariposa Electrique]

This post is satire, right?

I could say the same thing about your mom.

 

[Linako 2.0]

Conservativism is just liberalism on a speed limit lmao.
Yesterdays liberals are now labled conservative for latching on to theor outadted beliefs of 10 years ago.

 

[TyrasGuard]

You revive it using the same methods you used to kill it. Teach the future generations that chopping your dick off and calling yourself a woman is mental illness. Sadly, there is no short-term solution for this without going full 1488 on the situation.

Makes me dread of having children honestly, the last thing i want to see is my kid being thaught that Fetanyl Floyd was a hero and that mutilating yourself is a stunning act of bravery. Thank god i had an actual father and mother that would tell me i was a retard when i was about to do some retarded shit.

 

[celebrityskin]

Liberal faggots will just weed themselves out of the gene pool in the long run. Groups like the Amish and other religious fundamentalists are breeding the fastest.

Lol Evangelical Protestants are above replacement rates too, barely though (2.3 kids)

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I don't think there's a way to do it outside of theoretical secession/civil war scenarios.

There's too much against conservatism for it . To briefly elaborate a bit, that means most of the social influences (entertainment industry, news media, big tech) and power (government including our side due to RINOs, diminishing voting power which is happening for various reasons, school system) are strongly left.

In fact, when you think of the few remaining conservative leaning institutions, what comes to mind? Science (not really, it's just that conservatives are more grounded in reality comparatively) and the church, ironically. Science is neutral, it doesn't bow to ideologies, left nor right, so it's technically not even right-leaning. Well, that used to be the case. Now, science is being infiltrated by liberal activists and arguably has been for a long time (earliest I can point to being 1973, with the APA's attempt at normalizing homosexuality).

Also, we're starting to see church do a sharp but not unexpected turn leftward. Due to the left's constant battles to remove Christianity from our culture (to great success) there's naturally been a decline in attendance and people who identify as Christian. So to bolster their numbers they've rebranded as more LGBT friendly and such, and now there's many gay churches. That's a virus and will damage the church better than any screeching Atheists could ever dream of themselves.

I know someone's going to say something something blackpill, but these are things that are happening. To the exact extent, I don't know, especially in regard to church and science, these are just my observations and speculation. I haven't got data on how many churches have cucked to faggotry, nor, obviously, data on just how many libtard activists are passing their ideologies as science because they wear a lab coat.

Anyway, considering white people are being replaced with foreign voters and taught to hate themselves and subscribe to Wokeism from a young age, as older generations die out (typically more conservative generations) it's going to be harder to get literally any momentum going for conservatives going forward.

That's why our greatest ally is Democrat incompetence. Look at Joe, failing harder than any president in modern history at a blazing pace. If our elections aren't rigged there's no way Republicans don't win in '24. It's just that these damn RINOs aren't willing to make strides toward improving the culture by restoring conservative values even when we do get in power, so no ground is ever gained for long.

 

[Ishtar]

The conservative project has always been about subordinating certain groups instincts and interests to the Liberal project and Liberal State. The meme of the national review "the conservative case for...x new degeneracy" is simply this principle exemplified. Conservatism is an inherently demobilizing ideology, and serves the System by pacifying its constituents. Even the left has acknowledged this-strong central pillars is a fundamental pillar of the democratic order.

Really what could discredit conservativism more than Buckley's famous definition "standing athwart history yelling stop". The very telos implicit in this statement is "we're gonna lose, but let's make some noise to make it easier".

Not "let's actually take history to a different better point", or "let's seize control of it ourselves".

Even so, its clear with the coming global oligarchy and the great tyranny that seems poised to endure until the end of time, and the failure of the populist wave at being anything more than a speedbump, something else is needed.

A truly revolutionary politics is needed, something that incorporates the elements that conservativism has failed to preserve as non negotiable and eternal, but also willing to take control of history, and set its course, now and forever.

 

[Akashic Retard]

Why would you want to revive an ideology that got you to this position? Conservatism, if it's even an ideology at all, is an ideology that has losing built into it's premise.

 

[Ishtar]

What we really need is to break free from this rotten anti civilization and build something new. Something virtuous, beautiful, magnificent, glorious, wondrous, noble, and pure.

A civilization of light, composed of men who every day become more and more divine, less and less flawed, ruled over by a perfect man.

We need to transform the world, not merely conserve the rotten system’s former norms.*

*I realize how unrealistic and fantastical that sounds, I guess I’m a dreamer, a reactionary dreamer, at heart. I believe such a world must be fought for, successfully or not.

 

[Ira the Weatherman]

Conservative 'victories' are always nothing more than delaying progressive changes for a few years, then eventually adopting them.

I don't think that's a fair way to look at it. It implies that reform is something that only happens because the Right is too spineless to oppose it, rather than an attempt to keep the boat afloat in the stormy seas of modern era technological and social change.

It shouldn't be forgot that Conservatism was born during the age of the French Revolution, in a time where the only existing choices were either unhinged Radicalism or stubborn Traditionalism, either option likely to lead to civil war and the complete destabilization of society. Conservatism grew out of the complete inability of Ancien Regime governments to deal with public discontent in any other way than repression. To make changes when absolutely necessary, to prevent society from spiralling out of control and losing everything. This has been a very real possibility for the last two hundred years in every Western country.

There have been groups advocating for full blown Communism since the 1600s. French Revolutionaries were already planning to abolish religion and private property in the 1790s. There were numerous radical uprisings throughout the 19th century, Marx' prediction of a mass revolution was hardly unfounded. The main thing preventing these movements from gaining power indefinitely and were forces that were flexible enough to marry pragmatic reforms that adressed society's practical needs without the need to destroy European civilization and start anew. Whether it's a figure like Napoleon, or the democratic process, or Third Way fascistic models in the Interbellum. All of them helped to take the wind out of the sails of the most unhinged radicals, because they would've had free reign to monopolize the populace's irritation. It's no coincidence that the only successful Communist takeovers occurred in political systems which were too self-entrenched to ever consider reform until it was far too late, giving the average disaffected person no option to conclude, "Fuck it, maybe this firebrand preacher is right that we should just burn everything down."

The problem in the last half century or so is that we're seeing concessions that aren't necessary, and I think blaming Conservatives for not appealing to the population is only part of the problem, and it's a 'chicken or egg' issue as well. Society is changing far more rapidly than it ever has before. Globalism is rampant, demographic shifts are reachimg alarming speeds amd the Internet and social media have become so omnipresent and essential that we still can't fully appreciate how much it's warped our psychology, both personal and collective. You can't even speak of a 'generation gap' anymore, someone born in 1990 has a completely different upbring to someone born in 1995, or 2000. Not to mention the degree to which your own involvement with the digital sphere forms your social psyche.

I think change has finally outpaced the Conservatives' ability to rein it back in after two centuries of success. People are radicalizing at an insane rate right now, to the point where any discourse or accomodation is fruitless, as they've reached the point where they hate reality itself. Which has only served to make the very idea of compromise completely unacceptable to many on the Right.

I'm honestly reaching the point where I don't see any real outcome which doesn't devolve into endless anarchy and bloodshed, regardless if it's by the Right or Left's hand, the exact thing people like Edmund Burke had endeavored to avoid those two hundred years ago.

 

[Meat Target]

Conservatives need to stop kowtowing to, and playing, by the rules of their opponents. They fail to recognize that simpery gets you no allies, and that muh principles will always be used against them by progressives, who have no principles beyond "the ends justify the means".

Conservatives frequently lose because thay are trying to win fair and square at a game of Calvinball.

 

[Sawrunner]

i dont think trying to desperately trying to revive a god that died a long time ago is going to be very effective to say the least