|
|
Post by cato on Dec 4, 2017 20:27:21 GMT
The problem with conservatism is that in a multi-racial and multi-ethnic society it is doomed. It's also failed to conserve anything. The label "conservative " like most labels is a bit misleading. No body here is terribly enamoured by our existing social and political status quo or conserving it, but we realise change is usually about making things worse. I think conservatism values tradition and is critical of ill thought out change but recognises the necessity for gradual evolution where it benefits society. I don't know if a multi racial society is necessarly doomed .The Roman empire survived for centuries by extending its laws and priviledges to non Italians who agreed to accept Roman duties and obligations. (I doubt whether we have similar values or the confidence to promote them unfortunately). Going back to political labels socialism claims to benefit society and communism claims to be the highest form of community. Both claims are highly dubious but we still use the terms if only because we have no adequate alternative. Similarly the term conservative is inadequate but I guess calling ourselves reactionary fascistic antediluvian dinosaurs is a bit of a mouthfull! |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 4, 2017 20:47:38 GMT
Well, it's like I say in the welcome thread...it's just a word. I think it's the best word but it's still just a word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 6, 2017 11:10:08 GMT
"Reactionary fascistic antediluvian dinosaurs" Brilliant!!!!
I would like Traditional Monarchist Theocratic primeval Distributist
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 6, 2017 11:19:01 GMT
"Reactionary fascistic antediluvian dinosaurs" Brilliant!!!! I would like Traditional Monarchist Theocratic primeval Distributist It would be hard to fit on the banner. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 6, 2017 11:47:42 GMT
"Reactionary fascistic antediluvian dinosaurs" Brilliant!!!! I would like Traditional Monarchist Theocratic primeval Distributist It would be hard to fit on the banner. It upsets all the right people though. I have been called all four by various people( mainly in jest I think) in the past and thought it would be fun to unite them. The dinosaurs also ruled the world for millions of years as any school boy under 10 can tell you. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 6, 2017 11:57:47 GMT
It would be hard to fit on the banner. It upsets all the right people though. I have been called all four by various people( mainly in jest I think) in the past and thought it would be fun to unite them. The dinosaurs also ruled the world for millions of years as any school boy under 10 can tell you. "Dinosaurs", LOL. We all know the world was created six thousand years ago! Returning to the idea of conservatism and its paradoxes, here's a famous passage from G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy: We have remarked that one reason offered for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow better. But the only real reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow worse. The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative. The conservative theory would really be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact. But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 6, 2017 12:15:01 GMT
It upsets all the right people though. I have been called all four by various people( mainly in jest I think) in the past and thought it would be fun to unite them. The dinosaurs also ruled the world for millions of years as any school boy under 10 can tell you. "Dinosaurs", LOL. We all know the world was created six thousand years ago! Returning to the idea of conservatism and its paradoxes, here's a famous passage from G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy: We have remarked that one reason offered for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow better. But the only real reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow worse. The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative. The conservative theory would really be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact. But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post. Yes we all know St George killed off the dinosaurs and not any of this climate change nonsense. GKC reminds us how exhausting conservatism can be.... |
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 31, 2018 11:11:43 GMT
In relation specifically to our Irish situation we are now in the aftermath of a poltical/ cultural bloodbath to be followed by a real one in by the end of 2018. Irish conservatism is at probably its' lowest point to date.
A few random thoughts on the defeat that have been running through my mind. Irish conservatism is associated with the excesses and failures of the Independent Irish state. A cardboard demonised version of our recent past has been sucessfully protrayed by opinion formers , writers etc. That needs to be challenged. One simple example . The notion the church seized power in 1922 and imposed Roman dogmas on an unwilling or uneducated population; I don't doubt for a second clericalism did serious damage to church and state over the long term, but it is dishonest to pretend people did not want overt catholic values to be a major part of public life in the new state as a good thing in itself but also as a badge of seperation from British Imperialism and an alternative to the various ideologies floating around after the world war.
Part of the role of conservatives going forward is to tell the truth, even if it looks at first to be bad for a conservative vision. Engage critically with the new selective popular narratives which are largely aimed at justifying present day radical policies. We are now the outsiders, the gad flies (as Socrates was branded). A priest friend , orthodox to his finger tips told me on Saturday last that as well as overwhelming sadness he felt a great sense of relief. We are no longer the dominant majority. We are no longer in charge. We are no longer the respectable establishment.
For much of our history as a people we have been an effectively ignored and often despised powerless minority but our ancestors battled on and did not lose the faith nor the hope that better times were possible.
We were beaten down but never defeated. Let us be brutally honest with our failures but let us never give in to defeatism and give up the struggle in hopelessness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 27, 2022 21:05:18 GMT
This is not so much a bad thing, perhaps, as a dangerous thing.
I've noticed that conservatism (like other belief systems, but especially conservatism) draws people who want to FIGHT. Especially men, Especially young men.
They want to fight for the things they believe in and they are quite happy to fight against overwhelming odds.
I say this because I notice it in myself, too. I think it's a very male thing to want to fight. And a good male thing. It's not exclusively male, of course. I personally find it exhilarating to be up against the hordes of liberal-progressive zombies. (Tongue partly in cheek here.)
But then there is a danger that "you live for the fight when that's all that you've got". The fight takes over and you can't NOT fight. You DO begin to see the other side as zombies, non-playing characters, sheeple. You don't take anything they say seriously and simply assume they must be in bad faith about everything. You're on a permanent war footing and can't actually discuss ideas in an open-minded way anymore.
I think the opposite danger is there, too. If you lose the will to fight entirely and you can't make a principled stand anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 28, 2022 12:50:11 GMT
This is not so much a bad thing, perhaps, as a dangerous thing. I've noticed that conservatism (like other belief systems, but especially conservatism) draws people who want to FIGHT. Especially men, Especially young men. They want to fight for the things they believe in and they are quite happy to fight against overwhelming odds. I say this because I notice it in myself, too. I think it's a very male thing to want to fight. And a good male thing. It's not exclusively male, of course. I personally find it exhilarating to be up against the hordes of liberal-progressive zombies. (Tongue partly in cheek here.) But then there is a danger that "you live for the fight when that's all that you've got". The fight takes over and you can't NOT fight. You DO begin to see the other side as zombies, non-playing characters, sheeple. You don't take anything they say seriously and simply assume they must be in bad faith about everything. You're on a permanent war footing and can't actually discuss ideas in an open-minded way anymore. I think the opposite danger is there, too. If you lose the will to fight entirely and you can't make a principled stand anymore. I don't know if the desire to fight, (or to talk about fighting 🤔) is unique to the right. The revolutionary left has a long history or promoting internal conflict and war , if its in the interest of class warfare. Antifa advocates in our own time seem to be fond of advocating assaults , intimidation etc. There is a danger of sliding into warrior mode seeing all of life as an existential conflict with us as the forces of light against the hordes of darkness. Life is more than politics or great causes important as these are. Most normal people get on with their families, jobs and local communities the places where we normally can make a practical difference. I find the temptation to retreat into embattled mode can be dangerous and self destructive. It can make us sour and bitter which is not a good way of attracting anyone to your point of view. Christianity in our time seems to struggle with the virtue of fortitude and prudence. I admired John Waters and Gemma O Doherty taking their Covid constitutional challenge but it didn't appear to be very well thought out or presented. Declan Ganley took a more limited professional case in defence of worship but was disgracefully thwarted by the Irish legal system. The Irish bishops kept their heads down unlike their counterparts in other countries. Fortitude involves fighting in appropriate situations but also being able to suffer , sometimes in silence when we are being unjustly treated just like the suffering servant. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Feb 28, 2022 18:39:57 GMT
Following on Cato's observations, I think one thing Conservatism attracts is serious cranks. The left-wing extremist tends to be somewhat predictable but the conservative set seems to frequently draw characters that go off the deep end in terms of conspiracy theorists, race theory, extreme religious prejudice etc.
John Waters was mentioned in the Ukraine thread and I think he is a good example. The past 24 months seem to have plunged him down the rabbit hole entirely in terms of global conspiracy, anti-west hatred and paranoia etc. The Ukraine article is a nadir.
It takes a lot of balance and re-steadying for full-time contrarians to not go over the edge. Peter Hitchens just about manages it, I think, in spite of the odd moment.
|
|
