# How Do We Revive Conservativism?



## Mariposa Electrique (Jun 13, 2021)

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?


----------



## The Cunting Death (Jun 13, 2021)

>we


----------



## mario if smoke weed (Jun 13, 2021)

Best I can think of is educating the children, fight gay fire with straight fire


----------



## Milkis (Jun 13, 2021)

Stop deluding yourself, there is nothing left to conserve! You're not a conservative, you're a reactionary or something. I don't even like that word, it's hard to justify "reacting" to something that's been going on since 1789. Maybe "restorationist" or "traditionalist" would be better, I don't know. But stop chaining yourself to the notion that you're trying to "preserve" something in this society. You want a different type of society altogether.


----------



## Fromtheblackdepths (Jun 13, 2021)

Mariposa Electrique said:


> 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?


Read Locke.


----------



## Blamo (Jun 13, 2021)

I would say the label is not worth salvaging. By very definition it is reactionary.


----------



## DumbDude42 (Jun 13, 2021)

conservative just means preserving the status quo, whatever that might be.

if you were a conservative in pre-revolutionary france, that would mean you were a staunch defender of the monarchy.
if you were a conservative in napoleonic france, that would mean you were a staunch defender of imperial france.
if you were a conservative in interwar france, that would mean you were a staunch defender of republican france.

if you're a conservative today, that means you're a staunch defender of what was considered progressive yesterday, and tomorrow you will be a staunch defender of what is considered progressive today.

what you want, what you are looking for, is being a hard right wing reactonary. but in reality you don't actually want that, because it comes with the most severe and brutal social stigma that currently exists. it gets you excommunicated from polite society faster than being an open pedophile would.


----------



## JamusActimus (Jun 13, 2021)

We don't we're a gossip site


----------



## Ted_Breakfast (Jun 13, 2021)

Conservatism is as dead as liberalism. Now it's just corporatists versus conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Blamo (Jun 13, 2021)

Ted_Breakfast said:


> Conservatism is as dead as liberalism. Now it's just corporatists versus conspiracy theorists.


In the Cringe darkness of the 21th century you are either a skitzo or a pill peddler.


----------



## Prophetic Spirit (Jun 13, 2021)

Ted_Breakfast said:


> Conservatism is as dead as liberalism. Now it's just corporatists versus conspiracy theorists.


Any ideology nowadays is fucking dead. While could be gonna change by extremists (which is scary at the same time), is still a game.


----------



## Mariposa Electrique (Jun 13, 2021)

Milkis said:


> You want a different type of society altogether.


Just like marxist trannies who love illegals and want men, women, and children to find them attractive.


----------



## Haim Arlosoroff (Jun 13, 2021)

The problem is the flags and the teams.  The allegiances to entirely subverted binary party bases.  Liberals supposedly represent everything left of the ever-shifting (and so ultimately meaningless) line but instead push Corporate Pride Month and whatever the fuck this is:


Whereas the Conservative side supposedly represents everything right of the ever-shifting (and so ultimately meaningless) line but instead pushes Caitlyn Jenner and whatever the fuck this is:





I mean there is a reason this joke exists:




The problem is Conservatism isn't a moral position because it rests on a political party and not the supposed morals of the political party (which should tell you something about the political party).  A real moral position would be made of morals.  I would suggest forming a loose set of preferences and a core set of absolutes.  I fight for my wealth to give to my family, and I want to be surrounded by men and their families doing the same.  Do the republicans help corporations to lower the wage by inflating the dollar and using the printed pile on their financiers?  Do the democrats even want families?  Clearly we all want the America of our childhood, and those born in the seventies therefore want 1970 back too.  However Blacks are not going to want the past back, Hispanics are not going to want White America to reassert itself and kick them out.  Nonviolent political solutions then require compromises; what morals and systems do you want, what morals and systems do you need, and what morals and systems do you reject?

I would also consider, if I were you, the term 'reactionary' and what it means.  Conservation failed if it already failed and the thing supposedly being conserved is gone into the rear-view mirror of history.


----------



## Question Mark (Jun 13, 2021)

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.


----------



## Mariposa Electrique (Jun 13, 2021)

Haim Arlosoroff said:


> I would also consider, if I were you, the term 'reactionary' and what it means. Conservation failed if it already failed and the thing is gone into the rear-view mirror of history.


I don't know, when people start *successfully advocating for child rape in the West and the murdering of women by jealous troons you might change your tune. I don't just mean radical, obscure people on Twitter, I mean mainstream activism with mainstream figures joining in and reducing the stigma.


----------



## KingCoelacanth (Jun 13, 2021)

Conservatism is the idea of maintaining society as it is now.  In reality, conservatism is the moderate ideology.
progressivism - progressive, new change away from tradition
conservatism - keeping the current status quo, no new progressive change nor traditional change
traditionalism - reverting back to previous norms, away from progressivism.

In western society, there are only progressive choices, or moderate choices.  Over time, every progressive victory becomes cemented into society and becomes the new 'moderate' position which conservatives will defend.  Since there are no real traditionalist options, society will only move in a progressive direction, with conservatives only providing minor roadblocks to progressive changes.  Conservatives will also oppose traditionalist changes, should they arise.
Conservative 'victories' are always nothing more than delaying progressive changes for a few years, then eventually adopting them.  Conservatives never undo progressive changes, nor do they want to.


----------



## Chaos Theorist (Jun 13, 2021)

Haim Arlosoroff said:


> The problem is the flags and the teams.  The allegiances to entirely subverted binary party bases.  Liberals supposedly represent everything left of the ever-shifting (and so ultimately meaningless) line but instead push Corporate Pride Month and whatever the fuck this is:
> View attachment 2259269
> Whereas the Conservative side supposedly represents everything right of the ever-shifting (and so ultimately meaningless) line but instead pushes Caitlyn Jenner and whatever the fuck this is:
> 
> ...


https://twitter.com/BlckCatBlckSky

I hope this retard steps on a exposed plug


----------



## Jewthulhu (Jun 13, 2021)

By not trying to rebuild the past, but to make the future better. For example, instead of trying to recreate "muh based '50s," ask yourself how a modern political system can avoid the flaws and failures of that system while maximizing its virtues. I might not agree with the German Nazi movement, but its greatest advantage was that it was not a purely reactionary movement, but a revolutionary one. It wasn't trying to simply bring back the Kaiser, but to reinvent German society in its entirety.

Of course, all of this is just a thought experiment because a liberal democracy constitutional republicanism doesn't actually allow for political movements outside the Overton bubble.


----------



## Haim Arlosoroff (Jun 13, 2021)

Mariposa Electrique said:


> I don't know, when people start *successfully advocating for child rape in the West and the murdering of women by jealous troons you might change your tune. I don't just mean radical, obscure people on Twitter, I mean mainstream activism with mainstream figures joining in and reducing the stigma.


People tried that and got called homophobic:





You are like Zion in the matrix, one of the red pills is the "liberalizing of sex leads to more child rape" argument is vastly older than you think and the liberals have gotten exceedingly good at overcoming it.  It barely holds them back anymore, as you yourself noticed, but how have they done it?  Because they did it before and each time learned a thing or two about overcoming sanity and asserting Thought-terminating clichés of equality.

_"This needs to happen as soon as possible because we need to go back to the things we miss and love. The new normal means Hope. We have suffered enough. We will build back better. If you see something, say something. In these troubled times, we must all come together. Now its up to you. We will Make America Great Again. Hate has no place in America. Do your part."_

You cannot tell me you heard none of these, or when you first (not last) heard one of these.  You've seen the average person hearing these and obeying.  You are just the latest to wake to the growing evil, its vast and old, and even you like some of the sexual perversions and freedoms it gave you for your allegiances up until now.  You can think of it as the end-times from the bible, social entropy, or even a cost of liberty which needs to be paid now and again.

But if you will not think I cannot help you, because you want it to stop in an animalistic howl and nothing more, you are then still ensnared and trapped by the Thought-terminating clichés.  Not because "I cannot do all the work" but because you cannot even see what the problem is you are in such mental anguish.  You lack the first instinct to glimpse your enemy, to understand the danger.  In a democracy, and I am not for democracies because they lead to this very problem hundreds of ways, you don't have the right to be willfully stupid.  You are the lynchpin in a democracy, either be against democracy, or learn about the entropy destroying your nation.  Do not huddle and cry out to be saved, America doesn't let women and children do that anymore so why would you be pitied and cared for?  Equality is merely the act of convincing moms to become single moms in their empowerment so that in their resulting impoverishment their kids are more exposed.



KingCoelacanth said:


> Conservatism is the idea of maintaining society as it is now. In reality, conservatism is the moderate ideology.
> progressivism - progressive, new change away from tradition
> conservatism - keeping the current status quo, no new progressive change nor traditional change
> traditionalism - reverting back to previous norms, away from progressivism.


Reactionary or traditionalism, whatever the term it is the path out of the post-modern's asylum.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jun 13, 2021)

Mariposa Electrique said:


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



"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times." - G. Michael Hopf

(it would be nice if the cycle could be broken with good times _not_ creating weak men)


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 13, 2021)

ToroidalBoat said:


> "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times." - G. Michael Hopf
> 
> (it would be nice if the cycle could be broken with good times _not_ creating weak men)



He may have written that succint version of the quote, but the idea comes from 14th century philosopher ibn khaldun and his Cyclical Theory on the Rise and Fall of Sovereign Powers.









						(PDF) Ibn Khaldun's Cyclical Theory on the Rise and Fall of Sovereign Powers: The Case of Ottoman Empire
					

PDF | Ibn Khaldun, who is known as one of the 14th century leading theorists in Islamic political thought, has highly influenced the scholars with his... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




					www.researchgate.net
				






Mariposa Electrique said:


> . I want to see trannies, marxists, and their teachers kicked out of schools.



Stop talking about it with your internet friends and do it.



Haim Arlosoroff said:


> You are the lynchpin in a democracy


I am neither a lobbyist, politician, media magnate or banker so no I'm not.


----------



## Red Hood (Jun 13, 2021)

This is gonna sound crazy.

But let's put the spirit of John Wayne into a giant mecha, which will wear a cowboy hat.


----------



## Haim Arlosoroff (Jun 13, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> He may have written that succint version of the quote, but the idea comes from 14th century philosopher ibn khaldun and his Cyclical Theory on the Rise and Fall of Sovereign Powers.


Thank you, as a great admirer of Cyclical Theorists such as Spengler or Polybius I'm going to be reading this into the night.



Lemmingwise said:


> I am neither a lobbyist, politician, media magnate or banker so no I'm not.


That's not true, the butcher and the cowboy _are_ less important than the Beef.  The legitimacy of Democracy needs the idiot masses for their support.  Their usual dull cattle-like gaze and ease of herding to the polls notwithstanding.  The legitimacy, and thus the lynchpin, of democracy therefore is every individual idiot of the Masses. The lobbyist-banker complex of financiers in Washington along with the media magnate exist solely to exchange the impression of votes & popular support for the legislator's vote or the executive's order. Often actual rewards too, but the job retention which corrupts even the nuts like AOC comes from votes.   You could not keep the sham of Democracy without them, you must admit! 

However much the cowboy today rapes the cow, making them flee to the internets to high-pitch bleat and bawl about it.  They'll still vote Democrat and Republican reliably, and so the system continues legitimized by the majority who still vote.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Jun 14, 2021)

If you really care about the future then fight for it rather than whine about it in an echo chamber and expect someone else to do the hard lifting for you. 

Just do everyone a favour and don't target some poor shmucks living their daily wage slave lifes.


----------



## DumbDude42 (Jun 14, 2021)

Question Mark said:


> 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.


this doesnt matter as long as mass immigration exists. third worlders outbreed all these religious enclaves.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 14, 2021)

DumbDude42 said:


> this doesnt matter as long as mass immigration exists. third worlders outbreed all these religious enclaves.


r/K


----------



## Question Mark (Jun 14, 2021)

DumbDude42 said:


> this doesnt matter as long as mass immigration exists. third worlders outbreed all these religious enclaves.


Brown people aren't immune to feminism and liberal faggotry, and will be culturally colonized with time. When third worlders immigrate to Western countries, they are inevitably exposed to all of the same factors that drive down White fertility rates in the first place. With Hispanics, for instance, their fertility rate is dropping rapidly.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Jun 14, 2021)

Why would you want to?  What have conservatives actually conserved in the past 100 years?


----------



## Noir drag freak (Jun 14, 2021)

Capitalism, technology and scientific management is at odds with Conservatism.


----------



## Spooky Doot Skelly (Jun 14, 2021)

Mariposa Electrique said:


> and like most of you


hahahahaha
most of this site just wants to laugh. there's a reason politics is quarantined more or less.
to answer your question: you don't. it's literally impossible to stop  "progress" as long as technology keeps advancing and standard of living goes up, it is inevitable that progressive ideas and change will happen.


Noir drag freak said:


> Capitalism, technology and scientific management is at odds with Conservatism.


basically exactly this. if you wanted to be a true traditionalist you would need to go back to a pre-industrial, or even pre-agricultural society. most likely you'd want to advocate for some sort of primitivism/agrarian lifestyle


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 14, 2021)

mr spongecake said:


> basically exactly this. if you wanted to be a true traditionalist you would need to go back to a pre-industrial, or even pre-agricultural society. most likely you'd want to advocate for some sort of primitivism/agrarian lifestyle





Noir drag freak said:


> Capitalism, technology and scientific management is at odds with Conservatism.



The idea that conservatism can only be agragrian is pretty stupid, because it appeared when we were moving away from being agrarian and those were not the changes that were being fought by the then conservatists.

The other idea in this thread, that conservatists can only be succesful if things are frozen in time completely is an equally backward strawman of conservatism.

If you steelman conservatism instead, you'd say preserving certain things from change. And everyone is a conservatist to some degree. When you were put on lockdown, you wanted to resist that change and you especially wanted to resist it becoming normal. That is the conservatist impulse in miniature scale. It's like working for a startup that pivots and making sure some of the valuable things that are working well are not destroyed in the process.

Of course people's fatigue with conservatism is well placed, because we have seen many rapid changes for the worse take place the last decade.


----------



## Anti-Intellectual (Jun 14, 2021)

It's going to be a requirement for Conservatives and Traditionalists to reconcile their ideology with modern day advancements. There are many answers and solutions are already there though; going off grid, improving self reliance, rebuilding connections with family then community, participating in municipal politics, these are all good starting points to a revival of Conservatism.


----------



## Spooky Doot Skelly (Jun 14, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> The idea that conservatism can only be agragrian is pretty stupid, because it appeared when we were moving away from being agrarian and those were not the changes that were being fought by the then conservatists.
> 
> The other idea in this thread, that conservatists can only be succesful if things are frozen in time is an equally backward strawman of conservatism.
> 
> ...


I disagree. The problems that conservatives have with society will not be changed by staying in the current System we have. The 1950's, for example, is but a snapshot of international capitalism and it is impossible to freeze that in time. Large-scale agriculture and industrialization fundamentally make it impossible for conservation of any values long-term. This is due to increasingly complex technological systems you are reliant on in order to live, and what sort of values they coerce from the population. 

A classic example that you're probably familiar with since you're here is payment processors; the technology behind them, the organizations, layers, etc., is so incredibly complex that probably only a handful of people in the world (i.e. some principle engineers at VISA or whatever) understand everything in-depth. Yet we are all incredibly dependent on them and they significantly influence the values society holds. Being postured against powers like this will never be realistic unless you lobby for some sort of law change, which would necessarily strengthen state power over commerce, which could always be used against you later in the future, so that too is a gamble.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 14, 2021)

mr spongecake said:


> I disagree. The problems that conservatives have with society will not be changed by staying in the current System we have. The 1950's, for example, is but a snapshot of international capitalism and it is impossible to freeze that in time. Large-scale agriculture and industrialization fundamentally make it impossible for conservation of any values long-term. This is due to increasingly complex technological systems you are reliant on in order to live, and what sort of values they coerce from the population.
> 
> A classic example that you're probably familiar with since you're here is payment processors; the technology behind them, the organizations, layers, etc., is so incredibly complex that probably only a handful of people in the world (i.e. some principle engineers at VISA or whatever) understand everything in-depth. Yet we are all incredibly dependent on them and they significantly influence the values society holds. Being postured against powers like this will never be realistic unless you lobby for some sort of law change, which would necessarily strengthen state power over commerce, which could always be used against you later in the future, so that too is a gamble.


Thereis nothing uniquely complex about payment processors. A couple of autists made crypto's. Instead it's mastercard and the like are made intentionally convoluted and labyrinthine so they can keep control and monopolies over it. The harder the laws are to follow, the better for these banks with their legion of lobbyists and senators.

It's also not necessary to have all knowledge of something in a single person.

And though I am familiar with online payments, I pay for most things in cash, because I like keeping my transactions from computers.

Anyways, I fail to see how payment processors are an argument against the idea of there being conservatives who want to preserve certain institutions or practices that are time-proven and work well. Like for example cash payments.

If anything the stated complexity (and vulnerability to large scale EMP, whether natural or man made sabotage or war) is an argument against moving all our payment to digital.


----------



## Kero (Jun 14, 2021)

I’m not sure what exactly is meant by conservatism anymore, but I think what’s truly needed these days is a sense of human dignity. 

It’s a real shame to see people mistreat their bodies and their pride as a human being. Not this bullshit pride for being a certain color or fucking people in their asses, but pride for accomplishing something worthwhile or difficult.

Funny to imagine every ancestor that came before a person and look at what people are like today. 10,000 years and we ended up with the shit you read about on the farms.


----------



## L50LasPak (Jun 14, 2021)

Mariposa Electrique said:


> 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.


I don't doubt that you want all of these things, but you haven't done anything to earn them. If these people were causing you no direct trouble you'd be just as indifferent to their existence as any city liberal. You don't actually believe any of the things conservatives do, you just call yourself one because you happen not to like the same factions they dislike. Which is why conservativism is dead and their age long passed (I pin the death of conservativism as occuring in the 90s at the latest).

There are relatively few people left who even understand what the old traditional values actually were, let alone those who go to the trouble of upholding them. And the people who do uphold them make exceptions to the rules that have their ancestors spinning in their graves. _All of them_. Modern conservatives are not conservatives, they are disgruntled liberals.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 14, 2021)

_What does it mean to be a conservative in an age so skeptical of conservatism? How can we live in the presence of our 'canonized forefathers' at a time when their cultural, religious and political bequest is so routinely rejected? With soft left-liberalism as the dominant force in Western politics, what can conservatives now contribute to public debate that will not be dismissed as pure nostalgia?

In this highly personal and witty book, renowned philosopher Roger Scruton explains how to live as a conservative in spite of the pressures to exist otherwise. Drawing on his own experience as a counter-cultural presence in public life, Scruton argues that while humanity might survive in the absence of the conservative outlook, it certainly won't flourish.

How to be a Conservative is not only a blueprint for modern conservatism. It is a heartfelt appeal on behalf of old fashioned decencies and values, which are the bedrock of our weakened, but still enduring, civilization._






						How to be a conservative: Scruton, Roger: 9781472924001: Amazon.com: Books
					

How to be a conservative [Scruton, Roger] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. How to be a conservative



					www.amazon.com


----------



## Bad Gateway (Jun 15, 2021)

Mariposa Electrique said:


> like most of you


You don't know where you are.


----------



## Sealbaby (Jun 15, 2021)

Kero said:


> I’m not sure what exactly is meant by conservatism anymore, but I think what’s truly needed these days is a sense of human dignity.


If there is less of what you call 'dignity' (I would call it stoicism and self-restraint) among people in general, it's partly because the people society kept out of sight and out of mind, detained without trial in funny farms, were empowered by the internet - particularly the 'wild west' early 2000s phase of the internet - to stamp their mark on wider culture.

I could just as easily counter you by saying that extrajudicially locking up and lobotomising the likes of Rosemary Kennedy - who would be a frothing Pluralpedia-editing, carrd-making SJW if she were born in the 2000s - was not very dignified behaviour on the part of polite society.

Also you put your own self-restraint into question the moment you logged into KF.


----------



## DumbDude42 (Jun 15, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> Capitalism, technology and scientific management is at odds with Conservatism.


capitalism, technology and scientific development are perfectly in line with a traditionalist society. japan in the period between the meiji restoration and ww2 experienced a golden age where all three were seeing unprecedented advancement, while the country itself was governed by hardline militarists and an emperor who claimed a literal god as his ancestor.
similarly, imperial germany in the years between unification and ww1 was a world leader in science, technology, engineering and industry, while governed by staunch traditionalist emperors and nobles, who were overwhelmingly in the camp of reactionaries and counter-revolutionists in terms of political position.


----------



## Spooky Doot Skelly (Jun 15, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Anyways, I fail to see how payment processors are an argument against the idea of there being conservatives who want to preserve certain institutions or practices that are time-proven and work well. Like for example cash payments.


It's not an argument against the value in said practice. I'm all for cash payments as well, I think we agree there. My point is that it is a losing battle you will never win. Payment processors allow capital to move more freely and in our current system that means they will win in the long term. 

There will always be pockets of countries that can hold on to older ways of living that are still valuable while integrating new tech (slowly) like the Amish, but they will always be a minority. That is why "reviving" conservatism on a national scale isn't really a possibility, in my view.


----------



## Kornula (Jun 15, 2021)

We get people like Mike Harlow and Brandon Stryka calling not only democrats on their bullshit..but conservatives too.. which they are doing.. and we get them elected as Republicans  so they can inject new ideas.


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (Jun 15, 2021)

Conservatives are the radical centrists, why revive them? How about the right goes ahead and lays out a blueprint for how society should look? Make a traditionalist start with self-actualization being the core goal of the country, and the right to vote be relegated only to free-and-clear landowners, as they're the ones with the most stake in the country. Dissolve the federal government, and govern only on state, county, town levels, so there can be some diversity of fucking opinion for once. If we got rid of the federal government in all but the functions of currency and military, we would be better off. 

In fact, I think we'd all be better off being a little more tribalistic. Ironically, it would keep us away from each other's throats if we could just have representation or meaningful power for the "flyover states/regions". The parts of the country where the few domestic products we have left are made, are 100% completely ignored in government, and have been since World War II. That would be fine, if there weren't so many grand, sweeping, all-encompassing laws that ruin their ability to self-actualize.

I'm not an anarchist. I just want to burn the "country" down and let the states have their sovereignty back. That sounds inflammatory (pun not intended), but is there really a country left? I don't fucking think so. I don't have much in common with California and New York Democrats/Liberals/Leftists/Progressives/etc. In fact, I kind of want a war with them. I don't think I'd want that quite as much if I knew I could get them the fuck away from me.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 16, 2021)

Conservatism doesn't need "reviving", because it never went away.

There have always been conservative voices opposing the changes that more radical thinkers want to bring about, and in many instances, they have been successful. There was once a time when communism was the fad among radicals; today, it's transgenderism and critical race theory. Tomorrow, it will be something else entirely.

History elucidates a dynamic wherein progressives are the architects of change while conservatives are the stewards of it, but in the end, change always happens. You can't alter the arrow of time, nor can you remove the human propensity to innovate, which is why I think that those who want to create a truly "conservative society" are totally missing the point.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 16, 2021)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> History elucidates a dynamic wherein progressives are the architects of change while conservatives are the stewards of it, but in the end, change always happens. You can't alter the arrow of time


You can't stop the arrow of time, but you can certainly alter it.

What else are those architects and stewards doing if not a thousand corrections in one direction or another?


----------



## stares at error messages (Jun 16, 2021)

It's really nice to talk about what could be if us conservatives got our way, but I think it's too late. Children growing up here are either going to discover they're not allowed to be their conservative selves and leave or their beliefs will be criminalized by the ruling party. It's not even funny to talk about all the dumb things the ruling party does and says when it always comes with a side of, "You body is in danger and we like it that way". The question has changed from _different strokes_ to every option the ruling party is pushing is going to end with conservatives being subjected to either state or vigilante violence. There is no thing to negotiate over any more. Our lives are tangibly in thereat.


----------



## WhatIsThePunchline (Jun 16, 2021)

The american right ideologically is in a lot healthier state compared to the american left.


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (Jun 16, 2021)

WhatIsThePunchline said:


> The american right ideologically is in a lot healthier state compared to the american left.


Only in the sense that it isn't total batshit drivel uttered by twinkish utopian genetic garbage. The right doesn't have culture on its side, only some subcultures and the counterculture. When only a handful of corporations run by one specific group of people effectively own the culture, there's not much you can do in the nonviolent sector.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 16, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> You can't stop the arrow of time, but you can certainly alter it.


You can't alter the human propensity to innovate and discover, and over time, these innovations and discoveries build up and completely transform the way we live and think about the world. At most, we can adapt to our changing world, but we can't stop change itself. It goes against our nature as intellectually curious beings to remain static.

The question we must ask ourselves is what kind of change is appropriate, and to what degree could there be wisdom in the way that things are currently done? Serious conservative discourse attempts to wrestle with these questions; unserious conservative ideologues who simply wish to recreate the past and freeze their culture in time are merely engaging in parochial nostalgia.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 16, 2021)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> You can't alter the human propensity to innovate and discover, and over time, these innovations and discoveries build up and completely transform the way we live and think about the world. At most, we can adapt to our changing world, but we can't stop change itself. It goes against our nature as intellectually curious beings to remain static.
> 
> The question we must ask ourselves is what kind of change is appropriate, and to what degree could there be wisdom in the way that things are currently done? Serious conservative discourse attempts to wrestle with these questions; unserious conservative ideologues who simply wish to recreate the past and freeze their culture in time are merely engaging in parochial nostalgia.


I don't think you can dismiss the amish as "unserious". Plenty can be said about them, but not that.

And the ideas you raise are not exclusive to "conservatism" either. You seperated it into stewards and architects; yet your focus seems to be on the "wrong conservatives" for not being progressive enough.

I'd say conservatives who fall for that kind of narrow view and argumentation would be the ones that aren't serious.

That is not to say I disagree we should ask ourselves what change is appropriate, but I find it notable that you find no room in your post to see how progressives might be "more serious progressives" by not wanting breakneck speed in everything


----------



## Megaroad 2012 (Jun 16, 2021)

Mariposa Electrique said:


> 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?


>When you're upset tampon ads feature black women now.


----------



## jje100010001 (Jun 16, 2021)

The fundamental issue is that Conservatism needs to preserve something worth keeping.

The beauty of the West has been buried under the decaying mass of 20th century modernism, and to act to preserve this current arrangement as-is is ultimately a losing point- you are ultimately fighting to preserve the breeding grounds for modern liberalism.

Case in point- car-dependence and car-dependent suburbia are inherently anti-social ways of living, and significantly different from the way people used to live in the centuries past. To cling onto that point loses out on potential allies, and perpetuates a toxic way of living that works against the older traditions of the west.



Question Mark said:


> 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.


Amish yes, but I have some doubts about more moderate groups like the LDS, it's really more of a race to outlast the current zeitgeist without being targeted and pozzed.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 16, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> I don't think you can dismiss the amish as "unserious". Plenty can be said about them, but not that.


I can dismiss them as parochial, because that's precisely what they are. The Amish are a fringe curiosity; not a serious model for the future of humanity.


Lemmingwise said:


> And the ideas you raise are not exclusive to "conservatism" either. You seperated it into stewards and architects; yet your focus seems to be on the "wrong conservatives" for not being progressive enough.
> 
> I'd say conservatives who fall for that kind of narrow view and argumentation would be the ones that aren't serious.


My focus was on the topic of this thread, which was "how to revive conservatism". My suggestion was that it doesn't need reviving, because conservatives exist in large numbers right now, and their beliefs are not without a strong voice, both within the media, and throughout the wider culture.

If your first thought is something along the lines of "well, if conservatism is so strong, why does it keep losing?", then I think you've missed the point, because any victory you could reasonably conceive of is largely illusory for the simple reason that no matter what happens: time will move on, society will change, and beliefs will fall out of fashion, and this is just as true (possibly more so) for progressives as it is for conservatives.

My own view is that you need both types of people in order for society to function healthily.


Lemmingwise said:


> That is not to say I disagree we should ask ourselves what change is appropriate, but I find it notable that you find no room in your post to see how progressives might be "more serious progressives" by not wanting breakneck speed in everything


I think people who give serious thought to the merits and practicalities of what they're proposing are infinitely more wise than those who do not. I'm not sure what I've said which would lead you to believe otherwise.


----------



## Zero Day Defense (Jun 16, 2021)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> If your first thought is something along the lines of "well, if conservatism is so strong, why does it keep losing?", then I think you've missed the point, because any victory you could reasonably conceive of is largely illusory for the simple reason that no matter what happens: time will move on, society will change, and beliefs will fall out of fashion, and this is just as true (possibly more so) for progressives as it is for conservatives.


Your argument boils down to "times change", which is a fairly banal observation that doesn't interface with anything despite the fact that such an assertion means to do so by design-- that is, you assert that the conservative victories many of them envision are largely impossible because society is in a constant state of change, but you don't bother considering what those envisioned victories are, the inevitable built-in tolerance for deviation (in things left alone) from that specific vision, or what changes would render those visions impossible vis-a-vis others.

Yes, times change at the hands of various causes, but there's no actual sense of narrative already predetermined or even predictable for such a statement to matter, unless you're a triumphalist that thinks "the people" are going to simultaneously "rise up" because "the Left" went "too far". You're not getting a carbon copy of whatever life was X years ago, but nobody seriously argues or pushes for this verbatim.

That said, I think the discussion as a whole could benefit from more discussion around the term "conservative". Self-identified conservatives (social conservatives, in particular), when they apply the label in a coherent way, aren't concerned so much with "conserving" as much as they are with a particular vision of society. After all, one could call themselves "conservative" in that they want to maintain the norms and culture as they were in the aughts... but that's not what people in general, much less conservatives at large, think of when they think of cultural conservation. Their goals, frankly, are aimed more at an introduction or reintroduction of norms and culture that were either dominant in times past but are no longer now-- if they still have any presence-- or at least "rhyme" with said norms/culture.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 17, 2021)

Zero Day Defense said:


> Your argument boils down to "times change", which is a fairly banal observation that doesn't interface with anything despite the fact that such an assertion means to do so by design


It's only a banal observation if you ignore why society has changed over time, which goes back to the point I made earlier about the human propensity to learn and innovate. Society didn't move away from the principles conservatives advocate because some pink-haired woman on a college campus harangued the rest of us into submission, it moved on because changes in the circumstances of how we live our lives caused them to become less relevant.

A good example of this would be the way that gender roles have evolved over the past century. A lot of people have a tendency to simplify the subject by saying that it's all the result of "feminism", but if you look at it more seriously, it becomes increasingly clear that a far better explanation includes factors like the industrial revolution, reduced infant mortality, and innovations in birth control.

It makes little sense for a man to be the head of the household when his physical strength is no longer much of an advantage thanks to mechanization, and if pregnancy is no longer so prohibitive when it comes to women entering the workforce, then it makes little sense to deprive half the population of so much potential.


Zero Day Defense said:


> you assert that the conservative victories many of them envision are largely impossible because society is in a constant state of change, but you don't bother considering what those envisioned victories are, the inevitable built-in tolerance for deviation (in things left alone) from that specific vision, or what changes would render those visions impossible vis-a-vis others.


Conservative victories don't tend to be as obvious for the simple reason that conservatives are trying to keep things as they are; there are no milestones you can clearly point to if the goal is to prevent change. Nevertheless, certain changes which radical thinkers have pushed for (like communism) have been prevented, and conservative voices have played an important role in that.


Zero Day Defense said:


> That said, I think the discussion as a whole could benefit from more discussion around the term "conservative". Self-identified conservatives (social conservatives, in particular), when they apply the label in a coherent way, aren't concerned so much with "conserving" as much as they are with a particular vision of society.


Conservatives don't have a vision, which I think is the point you're not getting. If you read any philosophy that comes from a conservative perspective, it's all about elucidating the wisdom of how things are currently done; it's nostalgic, not visionary. People who idealize the past and wish to recreate it aren't conservatives, they're reactionaries.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 17, 2021)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> It's only a banal observation if you ignore why society has changed over time, which goes back to the point I made earlier about the human propensity to learn and innovate. Society didn't move away from the principles conservatives advocate because some pink-haired woman on a college campus harangued the rest of us into submission, it moved on because changes in the circumstances of how we live our lives caused them to become less relevant.
> 
> A good example of this would be the way that gender roles have evolved over the past century. A lot of people have a tendency to simplify the subject by saying that it's all the result of "feminism", but if you look at it more seriously, it becomes increasingly clear that a far better explanation includes factors like the industrial revolution, reduced infant morality, and innovations in birth control.
> 
> ...


Summary: conservatives don't exist so stop being conservative.

Yeah, right.


----------



## Zero Day Defense (Jun 17, 2021)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> It's only a banal observation if you ignore why society has changed over time, which goes back to the point I made earlier about the human propensity to learn and innovate


...which you _didn't_, which is why I called it a banal observation. There are potentially endless reasons for why we are where we are, and you didn't provide any kind of narrative. The comment to which I now respond is still hit and miss in that regard at best, but that's because it ties irrelevant things together even as it strives to propose a narrative.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> It makes little sense for a man to be the head of the household when his physical strength is no longer much of an advantage thanks to mechanization


What does physical strength have to do with the man being the head of the household? The cultural expectation, at the point of the Industrial Revolution and arguably still to present day, had to do not insignificantly with Christian morals stating that the man was the head of the household, and said Christian morals also had relevance to the division of household responsibilities between the husband and wife-- even in non-Christian cultures, those standards exist in more or less the same form on account of long-entrenched evolutionary inclinations. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution allowed women more access to work that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to do, but that wouldn't have detracted from the husband's standing unless the woman was out-earning the husband or was the breadwinner. At that point, though other cultural norms would lead others, on average, to view such a union disfavorably (specifically, the man would be regarded as a good-for-nothing).



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> and if pregnancy is no longer so prohibitive when it comes to women entering the workforce, then it makes little sense to deprive half the population of so much potential.


I don't get the thrust of this point.

Pregnancy still _is_ prohibitive. There's no guarantee that your employer will provide maternity leave, and there's zero guarantee that having to take maternity leave won't put you on the bad side of your employer in the long run because you've been gone for months and even when you come back you have less time to devote to your work because of your maternal responsibilities. There are advantages to hiring women over men at times (women push for raises and promotions less and are more compliant on average compared to men), but pregnancy remains a huge career impediment for women in male-dominated fields because those fields are designed around the expectations that can be had of men (e.g. not getting pregnant). That's why women who seek career advancement often put it off indefinitely, though sometimes they do it because they erroneously overestimate their ability to have both a career and be a mother (good or otherwise) or they unwittingly and improperly de-prioritize the latter despite still wanting it.

This all doesn't even touch the natural inclinations of men and women alike being reflected in the kind of work they take (the primary reason behind the gender wage gap), or the fact that second wave feminists _explicitly_ sought to get women into male-dominated workforces as part of their "rebellion" against the "status quo" of the patriarchy that regarded women as the proletariat, understood that they couldn't force it, but also understood that if given the choice between being a mother and entering the male-dominated workforce, most would choose the former. 

I find it really odd that you so flippantly dismiss the influence of a major ideology permeating the high academia that we would go on to insist children have to work to get into regardless of their actual inclinations with a line like:



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Society didn't move away from the principles conservatives advocate because some pink-haired woman on a college campus harangued the rest of us into submission





Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Conservative victories don't tend to be as obvious


That's... not the claim I was responding to.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Conservatives don't have a vision


And that's fundamentally impossible. 



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> If you read any philosophy that comes from a conservative perspective, it's all about elucidating the wisdom of how things are currently done; it's nostalgic, not visionary.


Supposing your impression has merit: how is it supposed to be nostalgic if they're "elucidating the wisdom of how things are *currently* done"? And how is it possible for a conservative, who has an idea of the future he wants to see, to _not_ have a vision?


----------



## Dom Cruise (Jun 17, 2021)

Nothing's going to bring it back but a war at this point, the left wants Conservatism completely run out of town, zero tolerance for anyone that doesn't think like them, right now the war is a propaganda one but as time goes the left is going to increasingly use good old fashioned violence to force people to submit, if it's not state sponsored it'll be vigilante. 




Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Conservatism doesn't need "reviving", because it never went away.
> 
> There have always been conservative voices opposing the changes that more radical thinkers want to bring about, and in many instances, they have been successful. There was once a time when communism was the fad among radicals; today, it's transgenderism and critical race theory. Tomorrow, it will be something else entirely.
> 
> History elucidates a dynamic wherein progressives are the architects of change while conservatives are the stewards of it, but in the end, change always happens. You can't alter the arrow of time, nor can you remove the human propensity to innovate, which is why I think that those who want to create a truly "conservative society" are totally missing the point.


What's going on right now is a stifling of innovation though, mark my words, the future the left is trying to build will not be anything but one great big third world slum where everyone lives in piles of trash and is slowly starving to death.

Things are out of balance basically, you need a healthy balance between the right and the left for a society to function, right now the left wing are completely out of control and will ruin everything, it'd be a similar deal if the right was out of control, but that's not the issue at the moment.


----------



## Schway (Jun 17, 2021)

If you're talking about conservatives as in people who want some form of return to tradition, spirituality and community? Then I do not think it can be done, at least not in the current system.

As I'm sure most people here know the average conservative is a joke. They've been thoroughly beaten and don't even know it. In place of any sort of traditional value system they have some weak-sauce version of progressivism from yesteryear and act as a punching bag for the progressives. Even if that weren't the case, progressives are firmly in control of the reigns of power on just about every level. The slow falling apart of these values and society in general has been a very long project and there's no real stopping it. I don't see an option for some kind of populist revolt, and a slow subversion of institutions is unlikely and in many ways counterintuitive to someone who holds traditional values. Progressives are mostly in the business of deconstructing and taking things apart, most of what they actually build are just tools to criticize  and destroy aspects of culture they hate. It's much easier to subvert and gradually take power when that is your goal.

On the other hand conservatives want to rebuild and establish new values, norms ect. You can't really subvert your way into  that, especially since the progressives aren't retarded and kicked the ladder to the institutions down once they were on top. The only revival I can see is one where the current system either completely breaks apart or fails in some spectacular life-ruining way and it provides an opening for people to fuck off and rebuild it all over again from scratch. Until then conservatives are mostly just speed bumps and convenient enemies to rally against.

I think it is very easy for people who sympathize with progressives to look back at the flow of history and innovations and say "It would have always been thus" as if it were the fate of humanity to have kids twerking for mentally ill deviants. It might seem that way in retrospect with the inventions and social measures that arose from them, but for a good bit of those a different path could have been taken, or they could have not become popular in the first place. The birth control pill for instance had trouble finding interested funding until suffragettes were involved to push the whole thing. You can see there how it's not as simple as "innovation always set to happen->social result that always occurs from that innovation".
I think there is something very telling about the progressives constantly stating how this would have always happened this way when throughout recent history they've had endless social campaigns, groups and lobbies. I suppose those were there just to cheer on the changes that were happening on their own.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 18, 2021)

Zero Day Defense said:


> ...which you _didn't_, which is why I called it a banal observation. There are potentially endless reasons for why we are where we are, and you didn't provide any kind of narrative. The comment to which I now respond is still hit and miss in that regard at best, but that's because it ties irrelevant things together even as it strives to propose a narrative.


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.


Zero Day Defense said:


> What does physical strength have to do with the man being the head of the household? The cultural expectation, at the point of the Industrial Revolution and arguably still to present day, had to do not insignificantly with Christian morals stating that the man was the head of the household, and said Christian morals also had relevance to the division of household responsibilities between the husband and wife-- even in non-Christian cultures, those standards exist in more or less the same form on account of long-entrenched evolutionary inclinations. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution allowed women more access to work that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to do, but that wouldn't have detracted from the husband's standing unless the woman was out-earning the husband or was the breadwinner. At that point, though other cultural norms would lead others, on average, to view such a union disfavorably (specifically, the man would be regarded as a good-for-nothing).


The only reason Christianity pushed those teachings was because they reflected the realities of the pre-industrial time in which Christianity originated, which is also the reason pre-industrial and tribal societies overwhelmingly tend to be patriarchal. The physical strength differences between the sexes are important because work in pre-industrial societies overwhelmingly tends to take the form of manual labour, which only men can perform efficiently.

When you couple that with high infant mortality, it makes sense for the man to be the breadwinner and for the woman to stay and home giving birth to a large family, and in agrarian times, having a lot of children was also crucial in terms of creating more labourers to replace existing ones (since work in those times was very labour intensive, and people didn't live as long).

The industrial revolution changed this, and as the mechanization of industry has increased, the utility of the social dynamic which traditionally existed between the sexes has decreased. It's really not that difficult to understand.


Zero Day Defense said:


> I find it really odd that you so flippantly dismiss the influence of a major ideology permeating the high academia that we would go on to insist children have to work to get into regardless of their actual inclinations with a line like:


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. There are plenty of societies in the East which never had anything comparable to Western feminism, and yet the results were the same. By making everything political, you're grossly simplifying a much deeper phenomenon.


----------



## Ita Mori (Jun 18, 2021)

Mariposa Electrique said:


> I really wish we could revive the conservative way of life.


Then it would be in your best interests to see America dead, rotten, and eradicated to the point of absolute unsafety, instability, and insecurity.
Conservatism is based on survival. When there's flourishment and prosperity, conservatism will die. It is not needed since survival is all but guaranteed in a prosperous society, especially when the population is full of people who did not suffer or sacrifice anything to reach the good life.

Is it any surprise the most conservative/traditionalist areas are the ones where you must struggle to survive?

I don't think you even want actual conservatism anyway; you probably want classical liberalism back as the mainstream accepted and endorsed ideal.
But it's that same liberalism that got you here. You only want to wind back the clock.

Anyway, it's too late for that. You're not going to bring back a fear of God, ethics, and modesty into a society that for decades was brainwashed to have no Gods or masters (except the state), that morals and modesty are walls to be torn down, and that hedonism & cynicism are virtues of enlightenment.


----------



## DumbDude42 (Jun 18, 2021)

Dom Cruise said:


> Things are out of balance basically, you need a healthy balance between the right and the left for a society to function


nonsense
societies throughout history have functioned and thrived for hundreds, even thousands of years, without the left even existing as a political force (except for the occasional slave rebellion or peasant uprising, which usually got crushed hard and fast)


----------



## Ita Mori (Jun 18, 2021)

DumbDude42 said:


> nonsense
> societies throughout history have functioned and thrived for hundreds, even thousands of years, without the left even existing as a political force (except for the occasional slave rebellion or peasant uprising, which usually got crushed hard and fast)


He just wants to coom, dude. He couldn't care less about conservatism or a traditionalist lifestyle. Just give him liberal hedonism free from trannies and dangerhairs that threaten his vices like vidya and big titties on a broad.


----------



## The Curmudgeon (Jun 18, 2021)

Ita Mori said:


> I don't think you even want actual conservatism anyway; you probably want classical liberalism back as the mainstream accepted and endorsed ideal.
> But it's that same liberalism that got you here. You only want to wind back the clock.


I've been brooding on that lately. I like the idea of classical liberalism, but then reality catches up with me. We can't wind back the clock. We've already paved the road to Hell. I wish I had good answers and solutions, but the reality is that liberalism, whether it's classical or social, is unsustainable. I hate saying that because I like some liberal ideas, yet when we look at our current circumstances it paints a different picture.


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (Jun 18, 2021)

The Curmudgeon said:


> I've been brooding on that lately. I like the idea of classical liberalism, but then reality catches up with me. We can't wind back the clock. We've already paved the road to Hell. I wish I had good answers and solutions, but the reality is that liberalism, whether it's classical or social, is unsustainable. I hate saying that because I like some liberal ideas, yet when we look at our current circumstances it paints a different picture.



I have always stood by the idea that it's high population densities that ruin classical liberalism. Once you reach a population so high that it isn't viable for people to own property in an area, that's around the time it becomes fucked beyond repair. That's where low-trust societies, gang violence, extreme poverty, degenerate vices, and top-down social control come from. Drive to some town you've never heard of in the midwest, and it becomes pretty clear that a town full of people who know each other has less of a tendency to crumble. It might not be a flashy town with a lot of attractions, but at least there's social cohesion.

If you took that town and started flooding it with immigrants, teach critical race theory in their schools, and hold a drag queen story hour at the library, it's going to make the original population of that town either leave, or be absorbed into the bullshit. Some people might fight it, but if you keep repeating your bullshit for 20 years, people put up less of a fight One generation later, and they're all smack addicted trannies or people who are so disillusioned with life that they make threads like this one.

High populations don't cause extreme left degeneracy and societal destruction, but they are a fucking lightning rod for it. Populations are high everywhere and there are about 140m people in this country who shouldn't be here for one reason or another. America is a recipe for disaster that the world will never forget. Close your borders to immigration forever and learn to control your populations. You don't need those people. You don't even really need half of your own. As long as populations stay low, you'll never have to deal with overcrowding or someone in political power trying to steal your resources.


----------



## Ita Mori (Jun 18, 2021)

ArnoldPalmer said:


> I have always stood by the idea that it's high population densities that ruin classical liberalism. Once you reach a population so high that it isn't viable for people to own property in an area, that's around the time it becomes fucked beyond repair. That's where low-trust societies, gang violence, extreme poverty, degenerate vices, and top-down social control come from. Drive to some town you've never heard of in the midwest, and it becomes pretty clear that a town full of people who know each other has less of a tendency to crumble. It might not be a flashy town with a lot of attractions, but at least there's social cohesion.
> 
> If you took that town and started flooding it with immigrants, teach critical race theory in their schools, and hold a drag queen story hour at the library, it's going to make the original population of that town either leave, or be absorbed into the bullshit. Some people might fight it, but if you keep repeating your bullshit for 20 years, people put up less of a fight One generation later, and they're all smack addicted trannies or people who are so disillusioned with life that they make threads like this one.
> 
> High populations don't cause extreme left degeneracy and societal destruction, but they are a fucking lightning rod for it. Populations are high everywhere and there are about 140m people in this country who shouldn't be here for one reason or another. America is a recipe for disaster that the world will never forget. Close your borders to immigration forever and learn to control your populations. You don't need those people. You don't even really need half of your own. As long as populations stay low, you'll never have to deal with overcrowding or someone in political power trying to steal your resources.



Except liberalism teaches that we can all co-exist and sing kumbaya by the campfire if we try hard enough.
You will never sustain your racial or cultural homogeneity with it. And losing that gets you contemporary America.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but liberalism teaches that vigilance means you suspect and intend to discriminate against others to protect your own interests at the expense of theirs.


----------



## Milkis (Jun 18, 2021)

You guys are such fucking doomers. Of course you can wind back the clock. The Hongwu Emperor did it!

After Kublai Khan conquered China, he set up the Yuan Dynasty, which lasted for about 100 years ( 1271 - 1368 ). There was an era of rapid scientific and technological advancement. They discovered polynomial math and trigonometry; movable-type printing proliferated. The Mongols imported foreigners from West and Central Asia into every major city in China, where they served as a class of bureaucrats, who were loyal to the Yuan because they had no ties to the Han Chinese. Many of the new bureaucrats were Muslims and became a multiethnic group called the _Hui_. Seeing things here?

After about 1330 things went to shit. First there were famines, droughts, and floods, then the Black Death reached China. In Hebei province, 90% of the population died of the Plague. A civil war broke out between competing Mongol nobles. The imperial government gradually ceased to function, and the civil war became a decades-long clusterfuck of competing factions.

How shit did it get? It's hard to say because imperial records become spotty around this time. Modern estimates put China's population at about 120 million in 1351, and 81 million in 1400. Proportionally, it would be the equivalent of modern US losing 100M people.

Into this void of shit stepped a random peasant named Zhu Yuanzhang. He rose steadily to become the leader of the Han uprising against the Yuan, and eventually kicked them out into modern-day Manchuria. In 1368 he captured the Yuan capital of Khanbaliq, renamed it Beijing, and established the Ming dynasty, with himself as the Hongwu Emperor. This was all at the same time as 1/3 of the Chinese population was dying and probably another 1/3 was engaged in various interprovincial civil wars.




Yuanzhang crowned himself Emperor of a world that had gone through the apocalypse. After the things he had lived through in his 40-odd years, he made a series of vast and sweeping reforms:

Forcibly relocated 500,000 Han into North China to replace those who had died of war and the Plague.
Replaced every Mongol and Hui bureaucrat with a Han Chinese; then abolished the Imperial Chancellor (equivalent to the Prime Minister), and gave himself absolute authority.
Executed his opponents and their families, about 100,000 in total.
Organized the entire population into _li_, groups of 110 households, who were expected to run themselves and elect their own leaders.
Established a system of internal passports, or _luyin_, and banned domestic migration between _li_ without imperial permission.
Granted the right for all citizens to send "idle men" or corrupt officials to Beijing for trial.
Redistributed land from landlords to young farmers, and then forbade the farmers from leaving their land.
Gave every household a hereditary classification (e.g. military, civilian, craftsman, salt miner), mandating the occupation the household and its descendants had to work in.
Forbade the Mongol hairstyle of shaved head, on penalty of castration for both barber and customer and their respective sons.
Encouraged agriculture, the rebuilding of canals and the planting of forests. He wrote essays about the destructive nature of merchants, which were posted in every village.
Established the "sea ban", forbidding all foreign trade and destroying ships and dockyards, except those under direct imperial control.
In short, Yuanzhang took the interconnected, bureaucratic, and mercantile structure of the pre-collapse Yuan, and forcibly split it apart into a series of self-sufficient agricultural communities, cut off from both each other and the world overseas - and from starvation and disease, but also deprived of the wealth and education required to scheme against the Emperor. He enforced a rigid social hierarchy in which the options were moral rectitude or death. The Hongwu Emperor didn't conserve anything, and he didn't re-establish a traditional form of society either. The agrarian, isolationist, forcibly ignorant China he left his successors was a new type altogether, shaped by his and China's experiences of famine, war and plague. What would you call him, if neither a reactionary, nor conservative, nor traditionalist?


----------



## Blamo (Jun 18, 2021)

Milkis said:


> You guys are such fucking doomers. Of course you can wind back the clock.


I un-ironically believe that. With enough cunning and force you can basically do anything. 
Of course you do need to have Rockefeller money and friends to pull it off.


----------



## DumbDude42 (Jun 18, 2021)

The Curmudgeon said:


> I've been brooding on that lately. I like the idea of classical liberalism, but then reality catches up with me. We can't wind back the clock. We've already paved the road to Hell. I wish I had good answers and solutions, but the reality is that liberalism, whether it's classical or social, is unsustainable. I hate saying that because I like some liberal ideas, yet when we look at our current circumstances it paints a different picture.


liberalism is extremely effective as a foundation for the economy, no other approach can really compete. 
the problems start when the liberal approach spreads beyond business and trade, and starts infecting other aspects of society.


----------



## Jonah Hill poster (Jun 18, 2021)

Reviving conservatism is no more self-defeatist than trying to be a moderate in the present time. Progressives are running rampant and are destroying what makes society move forward, while liberalism is dead on arrival.


----------



## Ita Mori (Jun 18, 2021)

Blamo said:


> Of course you do need to have Rockefeller money and friends to pull it off.


By the time you acquire that kind of money and influence you won't care to revive a moderate stance like conservatism or a more right-wing ideology.
You have so much wealth and power that ideologies based around survival or preserving the past mean nothing to you.

There's a reason these people either become obsessed with harboring even more power or using their attained wealth to shape the world in their own personal ideology and ethics. Humanity's survival is only worth it if it's a future they come out as Gods or unfathomably insured.


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (Jun 18, 2021)

Ita Mori said:


> Except liberalism teaches that we can all co-exist and sing kumbaya by the campfire if we try hard enough.
> You will never sustain your racial or cultural homogeneity with it. And losing that gets you contemporary America.
> 
> The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but liberalism teaches that vigilance means you suspect and intend to discriminate against others to protect your own interests at the expense of theirs.



I agree, but only in high pop areas does its failure really show. Cities are the breeding ground. Liberalism and progressivism are not the same thing, though, and the liberalism of yore self-actualized long before progressivism was even a concept. I never believed that the whole school of thought should be thrown away, but the kind we see now is an abject cancer, and should be excised. There is no 'modern' form of liberalism that works, because it's all based on wokeshit, empty-handed egalitarianism, and feeling good about yourself, now. (Barring ancapistan. Not even the Libertarian Party is safe anymore.) It used to be that people wanted it for the ability to realize their goals, but that's taken for granted.

Liberalism is dead on arrival, because, in principle, the work is done as soon as it's an institution. All of the thinking, the mental construction, the whole ideology, was made centuries ago. Centuries before even the United States played the whole thing to its conclusion. It hits its endgame as soon as it becomes the zeitgeist. The only place left to go from there is the weird and hypothetical, which, over time, becomes baked-in to society, and each day we stray further from god, and even the material. Liberalism, as it is known today, is all down to how you self-identify. It's purely within the realm of the theoretical/hypothetical, and that's where it will die.


----------



## Blamo (Jun 18, 2021)

Ita Mori said:


> By the time you acquire that kind of money and influence you won't care to revive a moderate stance like conservatism or a more right-wing ideology.
> You have so much wealth and power that ideologies based around survival or preserving the past mean nothing to you.
> 
> There's a reason these people either become obsessed with harboring even more power or using their attained wealth to shape the world in their own personal ideology and ethics. Humanity's survival is only worth it if it's a future they come out as Gods or unfathomably insured.


Yeah, the current elites certainly are on a technocratic roll. It is a pretty nice con job overall, even if I am not on the winning side of it. I can at least admire a well played plan.


----------



## DumbDude42 (Jun 18, 2021)

Ita Mori said:


> By the time you acquire that kind of money and influence you won't care to revive a moderate stance like conservatism or a more right-wing ideology.
> You have so much wealth and power that ideologies based around survival or preserving the past mean nothing to you.
> 
> There's a reason these people either become obsessed with harboring even more power or using their attained wealth to shape the world in their own personal ideology and ethics. Humanity's survival is only worth it if it's a future they come out as Gods or unfathomably insured.


this is the case with the current ruling class, but historically there have been exceptions to this trend. notably, henry ford (one of the most influential industrialists of his time) was a very vocal hitler fanboy who spread nazi propaganda in america in the 20s and 30s.


----------



## Blamo (Jun 18, 2021)

DumbDude42 said:


> this is the case with the current ruling class, but historically there have been exceptions to this trend. notably, henry ford (one of the most influential industrialists of his time) was a very vocal hitler fanboy who spread nazi propaganda in america in the 20s and 30s.


I think the 20th century was about which flavor of progressive managerial state you like. They used the same methods towards different ends. That on some level shows that you can have variations even when your system is rather similar.


----------



## Milkis (Jun 18, 2021)

Blamo said:


> I think the 20th century was about which flavor of progressive managerial state you like. They used the same methods towards different ends. That on some level shows that you can have variations even when your system is rather similar.


"You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen, and howl about America and democracy.  There is no America.  There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon.  Those are the nations of the world today.  What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state -- Karl Marx?  They pull out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories and minimax solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments just like we do.
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale.  The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business."
- _Network_, 1976


----------



## FunPosting101 (Jun 19, 2021)

It depends on what sort of conservatism you want to revive. Can we go back to the morals and outlook of pre-industrial times? No, probably not. Can we halt the advance of tranny lunacy(to use the most obvious example), political correctness, anarchistic violence, and general progressive shitbaggery? Yes, we can probably do that.


----------



## silverstacks (Jun 19, 2021)

Mariposa Electrique said:


> The only catch is, how in the hell do we further our political agenda?



What actions have you taken so far?

edit: I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, but it just seemed like the most logical place to start and I didn't see it addressed before.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 19, 2021)

silverstacks said:


> What actions have you taken so far?


Posting this and asking the question is an action too.


----------



## jje100010001 (Jun 19, 2021)

Milkis said:


> You guys are such fucking doomers. Of course you can wind back the clock. The Hongwu Emperor did it!
> 
> After Kublai Khan conquered China, he set up the Yuan Dynasty, which lasted for about 100 years ( 1271 - 1368 ). There was an era of rapid scientific and technological advancement. They discovered polynomial math and trigonometry; movable-type printing proliferated. The Mongols imported foreigners from West and Central Asia into every major city in China, where they served as a class of bureaucrats, who were loyal to the Yuan because they had no ties to the Han Chinese. Many of the new bureaucrats were Muslims and became a multiethnic group called the _Hui_. Seeing things here?
> 
> ...


The issue is that this requires a degree of isolation, or someone working from a position of extreme strength to allow the system to be rebuilt completely. If you have multiple foreign powers attempting to influence you and other, similarly powerful factions during the reconstruction process, it becomes far harder, if not possible. Instead, you may end up with a civil war or worse, Balkanization.

Like imagine if the US government collapsed, and while an_ America First _party was reorganizing government, China starts funding and arming West Coast separatists, while the EU and UN throws their support behind a DC rump state that also claims to be the legitimate government? (And that's not getting into sub-state actors like Antifa or the NGOs).

Suddenly things get hairier, and Libya- or Syria- start looking like more likely results.

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.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 19, 2021)

jje100010001 said:


> 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 (Jun 19, 2021)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> 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.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> 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?_



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> 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.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2021)

Zero Day Defense said:


> 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.


Zero Day Defense said:


> 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.


Zero Day Defense said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2021)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> 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.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> 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.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> 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".



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> 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 (Jun 20, 2021)

Zero Day Defense said:


> 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.


Zero Day Defense said:


> 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?


Zero Day Defense said:


> 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 (Jun 21, 2021)

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


----------



## Lord Neeba (Jun 22, 2021)

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 (Jun 22, 2021)

Lord Neeba said:


> 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 (Jun 22, 2021)

Mariposa Electrique said:


> 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 (Jun 22, 2021)

Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:


> This post is satire, right?


I could say the same thing about your mom.


----------



## Oglooger (Jun 25, 2021)

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 (Jun 25, 2021)

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 (Aug 30, 2021)

Question Mark said:


> 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 (Aug 30, 2021)

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 (Sep 3, 2021)

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 (Sep 3, 2021)

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 (Sep 3, 2021)

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.


----------



## Chive Turkey (Sep 3, 2021)

> 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 (Sep 3, 2021)

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 (Sep 5, 2021)

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


----------



## StarDreamer2002 (Sep 25, 2021)

Convervativism is retarded. Bob Chandler was a reactionary and look what happened to Chris.


----------



## Homophobic white dog (Sep 26, 2021)

You don't.

You reframe what it means to be progressive.


----------



## Apex Ralphamale (Sep 26, 2021)

You don't. Why would you want to conserve a 10-years-ago version of the same liberal social order we have today? 
Instead, you either go hard right and wear that brown uniform with pride, or you propose something entirely new like 'restorationism' and reject all the liberal values that brought us to the point we're at now. Reject egalitarianism, reject the idea of universal convergence, reject all forms of women's suffrage, reject the acceptance of all mental illnesses currently united under the alphabet umbrella and seek to shape society into something that is - unlike what we have now - functional and sustainable.


----------



## CAPTAIN MATI (Sep 26, 2021)

We point the finger at libtard trans xe-person commies and laugh really really loud.


----------



## Large (Sep 26, 2021)

He cannot be stopped said:


> universal convergence


Why this mathematical concept in particular


----------



## SaltyFanta (Sep 26, 2021)

Conservatism as a movement won't be revived in my opinion, nor should it. I think we need a different kind of movement. Stop just saying no to the left, it's time for the right to pull back. They want to impose gun control, then repeal the NFA. They want to impose CRT in schools, teach kids the evils of communism instead. They want you blackpilled and isol.ated, it's time to talk to people, because it isn't just you that's sick of this mess.


----------



## Die Dunkle Maus (Oct 1, 2021)

Not a conservative by any means (I'm all over chart depending on topic, political independent), but I think if you want to stay relevant, you're going to have to embrace all of those southern invaders. 

Beaners tend to be pretty religious (usually Catholic) and agree with conservatives on many key parts of their platform, if you'd make some room in your tent for them it would make a big difference come election time.


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Oct 1, 2021)

Just give up and go full national socialist. Why not?


----------



## Dom Cruise (Oct 1, 2021)

Lots and lots of feminine benis.


----------



## jje100010001 (Oct 1, 2021)

Not just a contrarian said:


> You don't.
> 
> You reframe what it means to be progressive.


Localism is one future pathway IMO.

As mentioned before, the issue with Conservatism's idea of conservation is that everything inevitably changes, even unintentionally, and so what should be preserved (perceived American virtues and way of life) and what actually is seen on the ground (unhealthy & atomized lifestyles, strip malls & suburban wastelands, car dependency, corpo-worship) no longer have much in common. 

This is the simple nature of culture and cultural drift, in that cultures will always be shifting through an active Ship of Thesus process as the millions of 'planks' that form a culture are replaced over time.

That's why Conservatives can be seen as out-of-touch and antiquated in trying to preserve a degraded reality, while also being trapped in Liberalism's sovereign territory as the latter are the ones largely defining the new words & movements nowadays.

Fundamentally, Conservatism needs to transform itself into a movement willing to progress on its own terms, and project its own vision of the future, rather than what's already there.


----------



## LeChampion1992 (Oct 1, 2021)

@Mariposa Electrique 
To be quite frank conservatism needs to embrace reactionary attitudes again. But it won't happen as long as conservative Inc drones on about how they will fight back before cucking out and saying now hold on don't be extremist, before saying they're the original thought leaders, before long they're bargaining with the opposition before finally accepting the premise of the other side and eventually saying we were always on the side of X.

To put this into example conservatives in 1996 it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve we're against gay marriage. 2004 we're against gay marriage but you shouldn't be homophobic. 2012 were against gay marriage but we're in favor of civil unions. 2018 Republicans have always been for the civil rights of LGBTQ people. 2024 actually democrats are the real homophobes.

America can't continually push economically right and culturally left forever. Neoliberalism has done more damage to America's culture and real term economy.


----------



## Phantom_FUZZ (Oct 1, 2021)

Conservatism is dead Neo-cons killed it. A new just plain liberty movement needs to happen. Conservatives became such hypocrites they'll never regain popularity again. I was a liberal out of high school and early on in college. Bush and the Iraq war and the religious right were pretty much what the modern left are today. Authoritarians in the name of woke-ism or authoritarians in the name of christian morals there is no difference. You have communist subversion going on in every major American institution today. It is a woke cult. Much like Orwell wrote in 1984 the communist know the way to power is to capture the minds of the youth and they'll capture the future. Culture is under full communist subversion. With 90% of civil discourse happening online and social media monoplies controlling all of it, its a uphill struggle for anything to break through the authoritarian cult zeitgeist. Liberty minded people need to get into tech all the way down to server hosting and broadband companies and then work out from there. Amazon controls like 70% of web services, google controls who knows how much and on and on it goes. I personally have no hope of it happening. I'm bugging out of society america is 1000% on track to be a communist-corporate dystopia.


----------



## Niggernerd (Oct 1, 2021)

Stop shilling for Israel
Kick out illegals
Don't stoop to leftoids "they're the REAAAL RAYCIS" instead put them against a wall and line up your sights.
Pee before you poop


----------



## GHTD (Oct 1, 2021)

Kick the evangelicals out. The religious right might not have much power but the evangelical right still lives rent-free in some peoples' heads. Therefore, kick out all the retards who insist conservatism equals some sort of theocratic nightmare where all you hear is bullshit about overturning Roe v. Wade and how the country should only have God-fearing Christians in it or something.

People insistent that the right is still "just a bunch of fundies" even though it's like a select handful now is what turned me off labeling myself anything at this point.


----------



## jje100010001 (Oct 1, 2021)

GHTD said:


> Kick the evangelicals out. The religious right might not have much power but the evangelical right still lives rent-free in some peoples' heads. Therefore, kick out all the retards who insist conservatism equals some sort of theocratic nightmare where all you hear is bullshit about overturning Roe v. Wade and how the country should only have God-fearing Christians in it or something.
> 
> People insistent that the right is still "just a bunch of fundies" even though it's like a select handful now is what turned me off labeling myself anything at this point.


An excellent point made was that Evangelicals expended a significant amount of the Conservatives' political and cultural power during the 90s-early 00s on useless hand-wringing over things like Rock music, Harry Potter, and violent vidya games, so that by the point when serious threats or doctrinal issues arose, the public had already gotten used to tuning them out.

The real shame is that the one thing they got right was the slippery slope warnings.


----------



## Don't Tread on Me (Oct 1, 2021)

The Shadow said:


> This is gonna sound crazy.
> 
> But let's put the spirit of John Wayne into a giant mecha, which will wear a cowboy hat.


That IS crazy. 

Where could we possibly find a 200 gallon cowboy hat?


----------



## Red Hood (Oct 1, 2021)

Don't Tread on Me said:


> That IS crazy.
> 
> Where could we possibly find a 200 gallon cowboy hat?


We make it out of a satellite dish, I reckon.


----------



## Ishtar (Oct 1, 2021)

GHTD said:


> Kick the evangelicals out. The religious right might not have much power but the evangelical right still lives rent-free in some peoples' heads. Therefore, kick out all the retards who insist conservatism equals some sort of theocratic nightmare where all you hear is bullshit about overturning Roe v. Wade and how the country should only have God-fearing Christians in it or something.
> 
> People insistent that the right is still "just a bunch of fundies" even though it's like a select handful now is what turned me off labeling myself anything at this point.


The evangelicals have been the most loyal, sincere, and politically effective “conservatives” in the past fifty years.

If not for them there would have been no “conservative” movement and the US would be as pozzed as say the UK or even worse.

Of course they stirred up a lot of opposition and hysteria about some sort of dominionist tyranny that motivated liberals, and people have plenty of axe grinding based attitudes(e.g. my mommy and daddy didn’t let me read Harry Potter so I hate them!).

Get rid of them and the left will just push on full steam ahead without even a speedbump.


----------

