How Do We Revive Conservativism? -

[Ita Mori]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[albert chan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What actions have you taken so far?

Posting this and asking the question is an action too.

 

[jje100010001]

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.

View attachment 2273742

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?

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.